Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-ivf-query-pruning-fixed-100K

like 0

[ { "docid": "26d4263e60fe27d2025df0336303a83d", "text": "Yes, however you would have to wait for the $900 to actually be available in your credit card account if making the transaction from an account from another bank or provider, as it usually might take one to two business days for this to happen. If both the chequing account and credit card account are with the same bank, then usually this will go through straight away, and you will be able to make your next purchase on the same day, but I would check your credit card balance first before making that purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "441fd07c422b3adfdc1129414374847f", "text": "\"I can't speak for every credit card, but I know two of mine don't have overage fees. The transaction either goes through, or gets denied. Check your card agreement and look for the fee section. One other thing to consider, sometimes when you make an online payment to a credit card, you will notice that the \"\"Available Balance\"\" number on the account will increase right away even if the payment is not reflected on your \"\"Current Balance\"\". If this is the case, and you are positive that your payment will be successfully posted to the account, I say go for it.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "11892ed9e5d1eccc37a4e36c24e5b22a", "text": "Correct. By putting expenses on to a credit card which does not charge interest during the grace period, and paying that balance every month, in effect you earn interest on money you've already spent. However, first, savings account interest is something like .05% right now depending on your bank. Yeah it's money, but seriously, that's 4 cents per month on $1000. Second, two things can make this very wrong. If you carry a balance, you'll pay much more in interest than you'd get from practically any investment you could make with the cash in the meantime. Second, a debit card can be used to get cash you already have from an ATM (not everyone takes credit, you know), and it'll cost you little or nothing. Use a credit card for the same purpose and you're paying 40% from the second the money comes out of the machine. Also correct. Rewards cards earn you more the more they're used. That's because the card issuer makes money based on usage; they get 3% of each transaction. They're happy to turn 1% of that, up to a limit or subject to a spending floor, back around to you. Again, check the terms and conditions. Most cards have a limit on total rewards. Many of them also have fees, either while you hold the card or when you try to redeem the rewards. Look for a card with high limits or no limits on rewards from spending, and with no annual fee or reward redemption fee. In addition to the above, you build good credit history with good spending patterns. However, your credit score can fluctuate wildly, because on one day you have very low leverage (percent of credit limit used), and on the next you've bought $200 in groceries and so your leverage went up 20% on a card with a $1000 limit. Leverage under 10% is good, leverage under 40% is OK and leverage over that starts looking bad. With a $1000 limit, with you maxing it out and then paying it off, your credit score can fluctuate by 30 points on any given day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25289ea61944e5b4bafd9ae395d2a347", "text": "\"never carry a balance on a credit card. there is almost always a cheaper way to borrow money. the exception to that rule is when you are offered a 0% promotion on a credit card, but even then watch out for cash advance fees and how payments are applied (typically to promotional balances first). paying interest on daily spending is a bad idea. generally, the only time you should pay interest is on a home loan, car loan or education loan. basically that's because those loans can either allow you to reduce an expense (e.g. apartment rent, taxi fair), or increase your income (by getting a better job). you can try to make an argument about the utility of a dollar, but all sophistry aside you are better off investing than borrowing under normal circumstances. that said, using a credit card (with no annual fee) can build credit for a future car or home loan. the biggest advantage of a credit card is cash back. if you have good credit you can get a credit card that offers at least 1% cash back on every purchase. if you don't have good credit, using a credit card with no annual fee can be a good way to build credit until you can get approved for a 2% card (e.g. citi double cash). additionally, technically, you can get close to 10% cash back by chasing sign up bonuses. however, that requires applying for new cards frequently and keeping track of minimum spend etc. credit cards also protect you from fraud. if someone uses your debit card number, you can be short on cash until your bank fixes it. but if someone uses your credit card number, you can simply dispute the charge when you get the bill. you don't have to worry about how to make rent after an unexpected 2k$ charge. side note: it is a common mis-conception that credit card issuers only make money from cardholder interest and fees. card issuers make a lot of revenue from \"\"interchange fees\"\" paid by merchants every time you use your card. some issuers (e.g. amex) make a majority of their revenue from merchants.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8ff59ea2c23ffa7b310d9932d2fd828", "text": "\"I also feel it's important to NOT get a credit card. I'm in my mid 30's and have had credit cards since I was 20, as has everyone I know. Every single one of those people, with the exception of my dad, is currently carrying some amount of credit card debt - almost always in the thousands of dollars. Here is the essential problem with credit cards. Everyone sets out with good intentions, to use the credit card like a debit card, and pay charges off before interest accrues. However, almost no-one has the discipline to remember to do this, and a balance quickly builds up on the card. Also, it's extremely easy to prioritize other bill payments before credit card payments, resulting in a balance building up on the card. It's almost magical how quickly a balance will build up on a credit card. Ultimately, they are simply too convenient, too tempting for most human beings. The world, and especially the North American world, is in a massive debt crisis. It is very easy to borrow money these days, and our culture is at the point where \"\"buy now pay later\"\" is an accepted practice. Now that I have young children, I will be teaching them the golden rule of \"\"don't buy something until you have cash to pay for it in full!\"\" It sounds like an over simplification but this one rule will save you an incredible amount of financial grief over time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0705011a94c6f42e4594a8b2d3c5aafb", "text": "\"The key part of your question is the \"\"so far\"\". So you didn't need a credit card today, or yesterday, or last month - great! But what about tomorrow? The time may come when you really need to spend a little more than you have, and a credit card will let you do that, at a very modest cost if you pay it off promptly (no cost, if paid within 30 days). I learned this when I was traveling and stranded due to bad weather. I had almost nothing in my bank account at the time, and while I actually did have a small student-type credit card, I came really close to having to sleep at the train station when I didn't have enough for another night in a hotel. As an example, if you have close friends or family living across the country, and something tragic were to happen, would you be able to pay for a flight to attend the funeral? What if you'd recently had an accident and a big medical bill (it doesn't take much, a broken arm can cost $10,000)? Perhaps you have a solid nest egg, but breaking a CD ahead of schedule or taking short-term capital gains on a mutual fund will usually cost more than one or two months of interest payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60f197fcd24ac4a0004f929ef51fa4a2", "text": "This strategy will have long lasting effects since negative items can persist for many years, making financing a home difficult, the primary source of household credit. It is also very risky. You can play hard, but then the creditor may choose you to be the one that they make an example out of by suing you for a judgement that allows them to empty your accounts and garnish your wages. If you have no record of late payments, or they are old and/or few, your credit score will quickly shoot up if you pay down to 10% of the balance, keep the cards, and maintain that balance rate. This strategy will have them begging you to take on more credit with offers of lower interest rates. The less credit you take on, the more they'll throw at you, and when it comes time to purchase a home, more home can be bought because your interest rates will be lower.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc4fb5e150939da5af1384a61a75eeb", "text": "On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e138ff6defe2d6a89d15ee865e23745f", "text": "\"Credit card interest rates are obscene. Try to find some other kind of loan for the furnishings; if you put things on the card, try to pay them off as quickly as possible. I should say that for most people I do recommend having a credit card. Hotels, car rental agencies, and a fair number of other businesses expect to be able to guarantee your reservation by taking the card info and it is much harder to do business with them without one. It gives you a short-term emergency fund you can tap (and then immediately pay back, or as close to immediately as possible). Credit cards are one of the safer ways to pay via internet, since they have guarantees that limit your liability if they are misused, and the bank can help you \"\"charge back\"\" to a vendor who doesn't deliver as promised. And if you have the self-discipline to pay the balance due in full every month, they can be a convenient alternative to carrying a checkbook or excessive amounts of cash. But there are definitely people who haven't learned how to use this particular tool without hurting themselves. Remember that it needs to be handled with respect and appropriate caution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb8152e2f225941fdaf15f1f09e1f37d", "text": "I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton. However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a92bb207b3777dc38b829f77f1fa689", "text": "If you can use and pay off your credit card in full every month, there are plenty of benefits including improved credit, reward points and more. Many fall into the trap of just making the minimum payments and facing high interest charges or missing payments and getting a hit on their credit reports. To start off, put something small that you know you can pay off every month. It could be your Netflix or your gas. Make sure you pay it off before any interest is accrued. Over time, you can ask for higher limits to boost your utilization rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f858b32f420e644bcc515ce8d8da0566", "text": "\"Most credit cards allow you to take \"\"cash advances\"\", but the fees and limits for cash advances are different than for regular purchases. You can buy stock after taking a cash advance from your credit card. When you make a cash advance, you normally pay the credit card company a fee. When you make a regular purchase, the merchant (ie, the stockbroker) pays a fee. Additionally, credit card companies can make merchants wait up to 3 months to actually receive the money, in case the transaction is disputed. Your stockbroker is unlikely to want to pay the fee, accept the delay in receiving the funds, and risking that you will dispute the transaction. Having said that, many FOREX brokers will accept credit card deposits (treated as purchases), although FOREX can be considerably riskier than the stock market. Of course, if you max out your credit cards and lose all your money, you can normally negotiate to pay back the debt for less than the original amount, especially since it's unsecured debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d724a1c1594d6e523fb271b54f2175ab", "text": "When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f1ba347564bf022cb2ff4282dfce309", "text": "As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account. The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account. for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b57b79376f59df43a6a51ee2b861ac6", "text": "A credit card is essentially a contract where they will loan you money in an on demand basis. It is not a contract for you to loan them money. The money that you have overpaid is generally treated as if it is a payment for a charge that you have made that has not been processed yet. The bank can not treat that money as a deposit and thus leverage it make money them selves. You can open an account and get a debit card. This would allow you to accrue interest for your deposit while using your money. But if you find one willing to pay you 25% interest please share with the rest of us :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf06e8134e17f22ae500482c03ac0d3a", "text": "\"It is going to save you more money in the long run to pay at once with cash. If you take out a loan, you will pay interest on the balance, costing you money. If you pay off the balance immediately, there is no difference between the options and your question becomes irrelevant. There is no credit rating benefit to placing large purchases on your cards, especially since your credit is fine. My advice is to pay in cash in this case, mostly because it makes you 'feel' the purchase. This is what you are describing in your question. This instinct helps you recognize potential problems, instead of masking them with debt. Questions like: \"\"Do I need this?\"\" \"\"Am I overextending myself financially with this purchase?\"\" \"\"Am I holding enough cash-on-hand for emergencies?\"\" You may be fine in these areas, but I would still argue that cash makes you a better buyer because the expense feels much more significant, making you more cautious and discerning. You are right to feel these things before dropping a large sum of money. Let it inform you and help you make better decisions. Don't mask it or be paralyzed by it!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2ec2555cc2ad70761dec8b1d77383c1", "text": "\"There are always little tricks you can play with your credit card. For example, the due date of your statement balance is not really set in stone as your bank would like you to believe. Banks have a TOS where they can make you liable to pay interest from the statement generation date (which is a good 25 days before your due date) on your balance, if you don't pay off your balance by your due date. However, you can choose to not pay your balance by your due date upto 30 days and they will not report your late payment to credit agencies. If they ask you to pay interest, you can negotiate yourself out of it as well (although not sure if it will work every-time if you make it a habit!) Be careful though: not all banks report your credit utilization based on your statement balance! DCU for example, reports your credit utilization based on your end-of-the-month balance. This can affect your short term credit score (history?) and mess around with your chances of pulling off these tricks with the bank CSRs. These \"\"little tricks\"\" can effectively net you more than 60 days of interest free loans, but I am not sure if anyone will condone this as a habit, especially on this website :-)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eee3787af4484907157a31db91c64902", "text": "You need to register as self-employed with HMRC (it is perfectly fine to be self-employed and employed by an employer at the same time, in exactly your kind of situation). Then, when the income arrives you will need to declare it on your yearly tax return. HMRC information about registering for self-employment and declaring the income is here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/overview There's a few extra hoops if your clients are outside the UK; the detail depends on whether they are in the EU or not. More details about this are here: https://www.gov.uk/online-and-distance-selling-for-businesses/selling-overseas .", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "03b1b1ff2669c5a7655dfae34ee02e90", "text": "You only pay tax on the capital gain of the bond, not the principal, unless the source of the money for the principal was gain from another investment, if that makes sense. In other words, if you bought the bond with income earned from your job, that money was already taxed as income, so it isn't subject to taxation again when you redeem the bond. On the other hand, if you cashed out of one investment and used those proceeds to buy a bond, then the entire amount might be taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76d3a95d25ff7bb001a41cb51f5d5769", "text": "\"Can I deduct the money that I giving to my team mates from the taxes that I pay? If yes, how should I record the transaction? Why? Why are you giving money to your team mates? That's the most important question, and any answer without taking this into account is not full. You would probably have to talk to a professional tax adviser (a CPA/EA licensed in your state) about the details, but in general - you cannot deduct money you give someone just because you feel like it. Moreover, it may be subject to an additional tax - the gift tax. PS: We don't have any partnership or something similar, it is just each of us on his own. Assuming you want to give your team mates money because you developed the project together - then you do in fact have a partnership. In order to split the income properly, you should get a tax ID for the partnership, and issue a 1065 and K-1 for each team mate. In most states, you don't need to \"\"register\"\" a partnership with the state. Mere \"\"lets do things together\"\" creates a partnership. Otherwise, if they work for you (as opposed to with you in the case above), you can treat it as your own business income, and pay your team mates (who are now your contractors/employees) accordingly. Be careful here, because the difference between contractor and employee in tax law is significant, and you may end up being on the hook for a lot of things you're not aware of. Bottom line, in certain situation you cannot deduct, in others you can - you have to discuss it with a professional. Doing these things on your own without fully understanding what each term means - is dangerous, and IRS doesn't forgive for \"\"honest mistakes\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af53fe1b8df5ef47b581399e1b92a747", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ae88354d918c5f09d1b21baec41180e", "text": "\"Take a look at IRS Publication 15. This is your employer's \"\"bible\"\" for withholding the correct amount of taxes from your paycheck. Most payroll systems use what this publication defines as the \"\"Percentage Method\"\", because it requires less data to be entered into the system in order to correctly compute the amount of withholding. The computation method is as follows: Taxes are computed \"\"piecewise\"\"; dollar amounts up to A are taxed at X%, and then dollar amounts between A and B are taxed at Y%, so total tax for B dollars is A*X + (B-A)*Y. Here is the table of rates for income earned in 2012 on a daily basis by a person filing as Single: To use this table, multiply all the dollar amounts by the number of business days in the pay period (so don't count more than 5 days per week even if you work 6 or 7). Find the range in which your pay subject to withholding falls, subtract the \"\"more than\"\" amount from the range, multiply the remainder by the \"\"W/H Pct\"\" for that line, and add that amount to the \"\"W/H Base\"\" amount (which is the cumulative amount of all lower tax brackets). This is the amount that will be withheld from your paycheck if you file Single or Married Filing Separately in the 2012 TY. If you file Married Filing Jointly, the amounts defining the tax brackets are slightly different (there's a pretty substantial \"\"marriage advantage\"\" right now; withholding for a married person in average wage-earning range is half or less than a person filing Single.). In your particular example of $2500 biweekly (10 business days/pp), with no allowances and no pre-tax deductions: So, with zero allowances, your employer should be taking $451.70 out of your paycheck for federal withholding. Now, that doesn't include PA state taxes of 3.07% (on $2500 that's $76.75), plus other state and federal taxes like SS (4.2% on your gross income up to 106k), Medicare/Medicaid (1.45% on your entire gross income), and SUTA (.8% on the first $8000). But, you also don't get a refund on those when you fill out the 1040 (except if you claim deductions against state income tax, and in an exceptional case which requires you to have two jobs in one year, thus doubling up on SS and SUTA taxes beyond their wage bases). If you claim 3 allowances on your federal taxes, all other things being equal, your taxable wages are reduced by $438.45, leaving you with taxable income of $2061.55. Still in the 25% bracket, but the wages subject to that level are only $619.55, for taxes in the 25% bracket of $154.89, plus the withholding base of $187.20 equals total federal w/h of $342.09 per paycheck, a savings of about $110pp. Those allowances do not count towards other federal taxes, and I do not know if PA state taxes figure these in. It seems odd that you would owe that much in taxes with your withholding effectively maxed out, unless you have some other form of income that you're reporting such as investment gains, child support/alimony, etc. With nobody claiming you as a dependent and no dependents of your own, filing Single, and zero allowances on your W-4 resulting in the tax withholding above, a quick run of the 1040EZ form shows that the feds should owe YOU $1738.20. The absolute worst-case scenario of you being claimed as a dependent by someone else should still get you a refund of $800 if you had your employer withhold the max. The numbers should only have gotten better if you're married or have kids or other dependents, or have significant itemized deductions such as a home mortgage (on which the interest and any property taxes are deductible). If you itemize, remember that state income tax, if any, is also deductible. I would consult a tax professional and have him double-check all your numbers. Unless there's something significant you haven't told us, you should not have owed the gov't at the end of the year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beeb13e4fad464b199373e02a5d674ad", "text": "\"You're certainly referring to \"\"Ex Post Facto\"\" laws, and while the US is constitutionally prohibited from passing criminal laws that are retroactive, the US Supreme Court has upheld many tax laws that apply tax code changes retroactively. You might ask a similar question on Law.SE for a more thorough treatment of the legalities of congress passing those laws, but I will stick to the personal finance portion of the question. What this means is that you can't expect that the current tax laws will be in force in the future, and your investment/retirement plans should be as flexible as possible. You may wish to have some money in both Roth and traditional 401(k) accounts. You might not want to have millions of dollars in Roth accounts, because if congress does act to limit the tax benefits of those accounts, it will probably be targeting the larger balances. If you are valuing tax deductions, you should put slightly more weight on deductions that you can take today than deductions that would apply in the future. If you do find yourself in trouble because of a retroactive change, be sure to consult a tax lawyer that specializes in dealing with the IRS to possibly negotiate a settlement for a lower amount than the full tax bill that results from the changes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc", "text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e974e9c76ecdd9f3ffe8704ae2d3f48", "text": "\"How can I avoid this, so we are taxed as if we are making the $60k/yr that we want to receive? You can't. In the US the income is taxed when received, not when used. If you receive 1M this year, taking out 60K doesn't mean the other 940K \"\"weren't received\"\". They were, and are taxable. Create a pension fund in the corporation, feed it all profits, and pay out $60k/yr of \"\"pension\"\". I doubt that the corporation could deduct a million a year in pension funding. You cannot do that. You can only deposit to a pension plan up to 100% of your salary, and no more than $50K total (maybe a little more this year, its adjusted to inflation). Buy a million dollars in \"\"business equipment\"\" of some sort each year to get a deduction, then sell it over time to fund a $60k/yr salary. I doubt such a vehicle exists. If there's no real business purpose, it will be disallowed and you'll be penalized. Your only purpose is tax avoidance, meaning you're trying to shift income using your business to avoid paying taxes - that's illegal. Do crazy Section 79 life insurance schemes to tax-defer the income. The law caps this so I can only deduct < $100k of the $1 million annually, and there are other problems with this approach.\\ Yes. Wouldn't go there. Added: From what I understand, this is a term life insurance plan sponsored by the employer for the employee. This is not a deferral of income, but rather a deduction: instead of paying your term life insurance with your own after tax money, your employer pays with their pre-tax. It has a limit of $50K per employee, and is only available for employees. There are non-discrimination limitations that may affect your ability to use it, but I don't see how it is at all helpful for you. It gives you a deduction, but its money spent, not money in your pocket. End added. Do some tax avoidance like Facebook does with its Double Irish trick, storing the income in some foreign subsidiary and drawing $60k/yr in salary to be taxed at $60k/yr rates. This is probably cost-prohibitive for a $1MM/yr company. You're not Facebook. What works with a billion, will not work with a million. Keep in mind that you're a one-man business, things that huge corporations like Google or Facebook can get away with are a no-no for a sole-proprietor (even if incorporated). Bottom line you'll probably have to pay the taxes. Get a good tax professional to help you identify as much deductions as possible, and if you can plan income ahead - plan it better.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a30c7eb9e87bc88e5f6f9fef0e1ae22b", "text": "\"I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can \"\"set and forget\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "986c9acc7c40e3a524b8ef9cff81fbe9", "text": "I just scanned in a single sheet summary of my last two years tax returns. It is something our CPA does for us. How would I post it? Don't worry, I marked out all the personal information. What is says is I paid over $50K in taxes in 2015. Last year we had one of our biggest contracts put on hold, so I only paid $20K. I won't have this years figures, because we don't submit them to our CPA until the end of the year. However, this year, we just bought out two other owners at $1.2M, which makes me a 33% owner. The contract is getting restarted (knock on wood), which all together means my personal tax liability is going to be well over $100K. My company is a commercial company, but we work with the government, and matter of fact some of the stuff we produce was designed and developed by the government (as is many of today's modern inventions - I think you would be surprised). So lets tackle it one at a time. Pick one of those things that commercial does better than government. P.s. Higher taxes doesn't mean higher for you, a lot of times it means higher for guys like me or way better than me (which I am perfectly fine with, and matter of fact would support). People who use infastructure more - like large corporations - should pay more for it...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37eefec0f97bf0090dbd8ec66afcbf52", "text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "182b561785b6dbb85ff8bf140ba84456", "text": "\"If you only have to pay 23k federal taxes on 100k, that means you are in the long term capital gains tax rate, which is the lower of the tax rates available. First you get your federal income tax marginal tax rate, and then find the matching long term capital gains tax rate. For example, if your marginal federal income tax rate is 28%, your capital gains tax rate would be 15%. Or rather, if the amount of the gain would put you in the 28% rate, then your long term capital gains tax rate is 15%. You can reduce that by having more losses. If you have anything else invested anywhere that is taking a loss, then you can sell that this year and it will offset the other gains you have realized. The only note is that your losses have to be long term capital losses too. Tax loss harvesting takes this to an extreme where you sell something at a loss to lock in the tax loss, but you didn't really want to get rid of that investment, so then you buy a nearly identical investment. ie. if you owned shares of \"\"Direxion Tech Sector ETF\"\" and it was at a loss, you would sell that and then immediately buy \"\"ProShares Tech Sector ETF\"\", the competing product that does the exact same thing. Then there is charity. This still requires spending money and you not having it any longer. If you feel that a cause can use the money more directly than the US government, you can donate an appreciated asset to the charity - not report a gain and also take a charitable deduction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd6eecc9738b213f4a0e3ccc7411900f", "text": "You have two different operations going on: They each have of a set of rules regarding amounts, timelines, taxes, and penalties. The excess money can't be recharacterized except during a specific window of time. I would see a tax professional to work through all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee9213262e8d8dd1322e2baa8f88abdc", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25faeedfce4fc9db142bcf1af0d49817", "text": "Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb722c559f44df2797bf063012c9f3c9", "text": "\"First of all congrats... very nice work indeed.. Secondly, i do not offer this as legal advise.. lol.. anyhow.. you need to make sure to hang on to as much as possible, being a single earner, our Uncle (Sam) is going to want what's due... That being said, you should probably look into investments, for starters, purchase a primary residence or start a business, or purchase a primary residence and use that as a business residence (both).. what you basically want are write-offs.. you need to bring your \"\"taxable\"\" income as low as possible so you pay minimal taxes.. in your case, you're in danger of paying a hefty sum in taxes... i'm sure you can shield yourself with various business expenses (a car, workplace, computers, etc.. ) that you could benefit from, both professionally and individually.. and then seriously bro... making 250k leads me to believe you've got at least more than half a brain, and that you're using more than half of that.. so dude.. get an accountant... and one you can trust.. ask your parents, colleagues, people you've worked with in the past.. etc.. there are professionals who are equally as talented in helping you keep your money as you are in making it.. -OR- you could get married, make sure your wife stays at home and start popping out kids asap... those keep my taxable (and excess) income pretty low.. LOL!!! I'm going to add to this... as a contractor, i've generally put any \"\"estimated\"\" taxes into some kind of interest accruing account so i can at least make a little money before i have to give it away.. in your case, i'd say put away at least 2/3's into some kind of interest earning account.. start by talking to your personal banker wherever your money is.. you'll be surprised at how nice they treat you... you ARE going to have to pay taxes.. so until you do, try to make a little money while it sits.. again, nice problem to have!\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "249b2108d031acf2c4a2641ff0360635", "text": "Another reason for banks to push this is sitckyness. Once you have all of your bills setup, its more trouble to change banks. This reduces the customer turnover rate, which lowers their costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18665dc5fa080e4469ed3808a1f01234", "text": "Most transactions that the bank performs for you are electronic ACH transactions, so the costs to them are minimal in the long run. Most banks do it now to keep up with the competition. Almost every bank does it now, so they have to do it to attract new business and keep existing customers. Also, the more you rely on the bank and use them to pay bills, the more they learn about you over time and can use that data in overall marketing plans. It's easier for them to record it into their system if it is all electronic to begin with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235", "text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc5e574b884a22dd65f5ba40b6e14f6d", "text": "\"One other aspect of this is that the bank will plan to eventually approach the merchant that they are sending paper checks to and say \"\"why don't you sign up with us and give us your ACH info, and we won't send you checks?\"\" And a lot of merchants will say \"\"sure\"\", because someone has to open those checks and take them down to the bank, and that isn't free. And that time while the money is in the mail, or sitting on someone's desk to be deposited, that is money that isn't working for you. So everyone wins.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e8a821e9da68323eb24d1bcdff738d0", "text": "It’s more convenient for both you and the bank; its much simpler to handle things electronically than it is to go through paperwork. Also, its eco-friendly and by saying that they care about the environment, banks earn brownie points with environmentally-conscious customers.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "362f05a523b3b1facc4c35235924f422", "text": "That's how my power company does it. You authorize them to direct debit recurring monthly. If they screw up and withdraw $1000, you're out until it gets fixed. But it varies from company to company. Not everyone's situation is like your online banking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3201a2eb3d02a72161d8c3f6e3e327b2", "text": "Agreed. I use online banking for everything I can. The only thing that holds me back is when there are insane fees on using online payments. So really it's the companies with these fees that are slowing us all down... And the older generation that refuses to try to understand debit/credit cards and online banking. My grandma will only use cash and checks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a603e76dd7cf5e499482b89caca47328", "text": "First, they don't have an obligation to provide a service for a non-customer. In theory, the could even refuse this service to account holders if that was their business model, although in practice that would almost surely be too large of a turn-off to be commercially feasible. Non-account holders aren't paying fees or providing capital to the bank, so the bank really has no incentive or obligation to tie up tellers serving them. Maybe as importantly, they have a legitimate business reason in this case as stated. The fact that the bill passed whatever test the teller did does not, of course, ensure that the bill is real. They may (or may not) subject it to additional tests later that might be more conclusive. Making you have an account helps ensure that, in the event they do test it and it fails, that (a) they know who you are in case the Secret Service wants to find you, and (b) they can recover their losses by debiting your account by the $100. This isn't foolproof since any number of bad things could still happen (identity theft, closing account before they do additional tests, bill passing later tests, etc.), but it does give them some measure of protection.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c93766cffbed678cdc07a21a5894f72", "text": "Something you may want to consider if you are still choosing a bill-paying service is the contingency policies of the service. I just suffered an extended stay in a hospital and my officially (in writing) designated Power of Attorney was NOT granted access to my PAYTRUST account. Thus they could NOT take care of my finances easily. After my discharge, I contacted PAYTRUST and they had canceled my account and would not reactivate it. This is after over fifteen years of loyalty. Needless to say there was much financial chaos in my life due to their negligence. They were staunch in their policy and said officially that if they need to acknowledge a Power of Attorney, the ONLY thing they will allow the POA to do is close the PAYTRUST account. How's that for customer service?! Caveat Emptor. I am now seeking another service and will be asking about their POA policies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8695e8030ee3269d15f22929ed6fbf9f", "text": "I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service? My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35521eafb32f55645fbcfd314a99e5f0", "text": "While it's wise, easier and safer to check your transactions online a few times a month, I opt to receive and file paper statements as a hard copy back up of account history. Any reconciliation I perform is a quick glance to make sure the numbers sound right. It's probably a small waste of time and space, but it settles some of my paranoia (due to my training as a computer engineer) about failure of electronic banking systems. If someone tampers with bank records or a SAN explodes and wipes out a bunch of account data, then I will have years worth of paper statements to back up my numbers. Having years worth of statements printed on the banks stationary will have better credibility in court than a .pdf or printout thereof that could have been doctored, in case I ever needed to take my bank to court. A little piece of mind for the price of a letter opener, a square foot file box and a couple of minutes a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "151cb4b3a1d1eebe302685ca1a4fa112", "text": "Lower risk of having to fight to get their money back, obviously. That's what credit rating is supposed to predict. Paying your bills on time, and paying off the balance in full every month, are different questions. They want to know that you will make the minimum payments at least, and that you will eventually pay back the loan. Compare that with subprime and/or loan sharks, where the assumption is that being late or defaulting is more common, and interest rates are truly obscene in order to make a profit despite that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad95541644e49cb3761095f39c7f52da", "text": "\"I don't see how this concept takes off. First and foremost, BankSimple is NOT a bank but a tech company masquerading as one. BankSimple leaves industry regulation and treasury management -- the CORE of banking, to outside parties. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer to have as few stops between me and my money as possible. If not for a fear of losing it in a robbery and inability to earn interest, I'd shove it under a mattress. So why would I want to bank with an intermediary, who admittently doesn't understand how the process works? How is that \"\"looking out for my interests\"\"? And how is your security better than other institutions that offer 128-bit encryption and multiple security questions to test a customer's identity? I'd like to add that not charging overdraft fees and providing lines of credit to help customers out in the event they spend more than they have is nice in concept, but what happens when those same customers do not make deposits to cover their shortfalls? When it comes to money, people will take advantage of any opportunities they have to circumvent the system. Especially if funds are tight.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7a396f4f01017517d2af9035b684198", "text": "Using the bank's bill pay always seemed like a hassle to me. There are lots of mistakes to be made by me that can result in late payments and not too many benefits other than some convenience, and being able to pay bills online for accounts that require paper payment. (Although the banking systems often screw up those payments) Plus, there is usually a fee associated with bill pay, at least to some extent. I generally use the websites of my credit cards or other entities to pay bills. Then again, maybe I'm a bit of a weirdo here... I don't see mailing a check 3 days ahead of the due date as a particular hassle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44309cd550236d0b4bb90aa00c1efe11", "text": "I use online banking and bill pay for all accounts where I can control when and how much is paid, where I push the funds out. The bills from those companies that want to be allowed to reach into my account and pull money automatically (e.g. my Chase mortgage) I simply will not enroll - they get a paper check in the mail. There is no way I am giving these cocksucker criminals *permission* to take money out of my accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "540ad14306a6ab98c337a396e981a398", "text": "Even for those of us who aren't at risk of over drafting, direct debit is a less-than-stellar option. Direct debit is a great way to begin ignoring how large your bills are. By explicitly paying them through my bank's online billpay, I notice immediately when a bill is larger than it ought to be. This is often caused by a billing error. In which case I've found it far easier to resolve disputes when the money is still in my hands. It's significantly harder to convince an internet provider, cell phone service, or utility to reverse an incorrect charge after it's been paid than it is before. The other times, it's because I've been using the service more than normal. For example, sending text messages more frequently or using more electricity. Explicitly paying these bills makes me realize upfront that there's been a change in my behavior and I can either reduce my expenses or accept the higher cost for higher service. My own experience leads me to believe that paying your bills automatically every month is a great way to ignore these events, and leak money like a sieve. Online bill pay makes doing this as trivial as I could hope for, and the risk of missing a payment is essentially nil.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fa6e938d11ef82ce12ac841a01fabd6", "text": "\"From the bank's perspective, they are offering a service and within their rights to charge appropriately for that service. Depending on the size of their operation, they may have considerable overhead costs that they need to recoup one way or another to continue operating (profitably, they hope). Traditionally, banks would encourage you to save with them by offering interest growth on your deposits. Meanwhile they would invest your (and all of their customer's) funds in securities or loans to other patrons that they anticipate will generate income for them at a faster rate than the interest they pay back to you. These days however, this overly simplified model is relatively insignificant in consumer banking. Instead, they've found they can make a lot more profit by simply charging fees for the handling of your funds, and when they want to loan money to consumers they just borrow from a central bank. What this means is that the size of your balance (unless abnormally huge) is of little interest to a branch manager - it doesn't generate revenue for them much faster than a tiny balance with the same number of transactions would. To put it simply, they can live without you, and your threatening to leave, even if you follow through, is barely going to do anything to their bottom line. They will let you. If you DO have an abnormally huge balance, and it's all in a simple checking or savings account, then it might make them pause for thought. But if that's true then frankly you're doing banking wrong and should move those funds somewhere where they can work harder for you in terms of growth. They might even suggest so themselves and direct you to one of their own \"\"personal wealth managers\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9cdcdff137ec7b88535795c9b4a7540", "text": "\"From the banks point of view the point of a current account like this is to get you as a regular customer. They want to be your \"\"main bank\"\", the bank you interact with the most, the bank you turn to first when you need financial products and services, the bank whose advertising you see every time you log into online banking or walk into a branch. The bank knows that if they just offer the unprofitablly high interest rate or other perks with no strings attatched that people will open the account and dump a bunch of savings in it but won't actually move their financial life over, their old bank will still be their main bank. So they attatch strings like a required minimum deposit, a minimum number of direct debits and similar. These have minimal effect on people actually using the account as their main current account while being a pain for people trying to game the system. Of course as you point out it is still possible to game the system but they don't need to make gaming the system impossible, they just need to make it inconvianiant enough that most people won't bother.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1b045c543a90f25c4cfb615618dd4e6", "text": "I don't know, ask the various companies I'm forced to do business with why in the hell they want me to stop by their office so I can drop a check off vs just using some means of digital payment. I would fucking LOVE to ditch paper checks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc62090f22d1078f7f51c9926b2899ac", "text": "There is a reason - your credit score. If you ever take out a mortgage, you might pay dearly for your behavior. The bank where you have the credit card reports the amount on the bill to the credit rating agencies. If you pay before the bill date, they will always report zero. You should wait at least till the day after the billing cycle ends, and then pay off (you don't need to have the paper bill in your hands - you can see online when the cycle closed). Depending on your other financial behavior, this will have between zero and significant effect, on the percentages you get offered for car loans, mortgages, etc.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8fbdbd395d7ba348eadeda32c83ba4d7", "text": "Ally bank has a free billpay service where you have the option of paying bills via eBills. Though I use Ally's billPay service (and I write about my experience with Ally in my blog), I haven't used eBills, but from reading your question, looks like this is what you are looking for. From Ally's site: What are eBills? An eBill is an online version of a bill or statement that can replace a traditional paper copy. Many large companies, like your electric, phone, cable and major credit card companies have the ability to send you eBills. To receive eBills at Ally, you must already receive your bill online at the biller's website. Ally will ask for the biller's website credentials to set up an eBill. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6ec4c6e33b1f072622f1c14cf686071", "text": "Paytrust seems to be the only game in town. We've changed banks several times over the last 15 years and I can tell you that using a bank's bill pay service locks you in, big time. I loved paytrust because I could make one change if we changed banks. If you're using a bank directly for your bills, the ides of recreating your payee list is daunting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c93766cffbed678cdc07a21a5894f72", "text": "Something you may want to consider if you are still choosing a bill-paying service is the contingency policies of the service. I just suffered an extended stay in a hospital and my officially (in writing) designated Power of Attorney was NOT granted access to my PAYTRUST account. Thus they could NOT take care of my finances easily. After my discharge, I contacted PAYTRUST and they had canceled my account and would not reactivate it. This is after over fifteen years of loyalty. Needless to say there was much financial chaos in my life due to their negligence. They were staunch in their policy and said officially that if they need to acknowledge a Power of Attorney, the ONLY thing they will allow the POA to do is close the PAYTRUST account. How's that for customer service?! Caveat Emptor. I am now seeking another service and will be asking about their POA policies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd2b69e057bd9770c1cfe1a77a862bb5", "text": "\"An old question... but the recent answer for me turned out to be Check (formerly Pageonce) https://check.me/ (NOTE: Check was recently purchased by Intuit and is now MintBills) The only thing Check doesn't do that PayTrust did was accept paper bills from payees that couldn't do eBill... but that's a rare problem anymore (for me anyways). I went through each of my payees in PayTrust and added them into Check, it found almost all of them... I added my security info for their logins, and it was setup. The few that Check couldn't find, it asked me for the details and would contact them to try and get it setup... but in the meantime I just added them to my bank's billpay system with automatic payment rules (my mortgage company was the only one it couldn't find, and I know what my mortgage is every month so it's easy to setup a consistent rule) Check does so much more than PayTrust will ever do... Check has a MOBILE APP, and it is really the centerpiece of the whole system... you never really log into the website from your desktop (except to setup all the payees)... most of the time you just get alerts on your phone when a bill is due and you just click \"\"pay\"\" and choose a funding source, and bam you're done. It's been awesome so far... I highly recommend dumping PayTrust for it! FYI: Check is clearly winning at this point, but some of the competition are are http://manilla.com (not sure if you can pay your bills through them though) and DoxoPay ( https://www.doxo.com/posts/pay-your-bills-on-the-go-with-mobile-doxopay-new-android-app-and-an-updated-iphone-app/ )\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d7f2372eac414d801f4c68ed0695462", "text": "(Six years later...) I've used CheckFree for over 20 years, and my uncle started using it back in the early 1980s through a 300 baud modem. It has e-bills, EDI bills that you schedule yourself, and will also mail checks to people and small businesses. You can make your payments from an unlimited number of banks, can schedule multiple recurring payments for the same bill (I find that useful for when buying large/expensive items by CC: I create a different payment schedule for each), plus ad hoc payments.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fd38139ef1ff50c0c080ab457dd92245", "text": "How about finding a friend with Paypal and sending them the money so they can pay your bill using a card? Withdrawals from Paypal are typically instant now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3231c7537fb00691c38e465d9885fe0c", "text": "Um really, you expect US to know the answer? Why not ask Wells Fargo? Unless someone here happens to work for WF and has access to the right people, this is more likely a question to send to their support people than to get an answer here that is anything other than a SWAG (and in that line of reasoning, and as a software tester by trade, my money is on the already offered reasoning that it's doing some kind of primative 'bad word' search (probably a regular expression match) and getting a hit on tit. ) In the meantime I suggest an alternative term, how about 'offering'", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbc0ccde74d0121531d8cff7849f96d", "text": "What qualifies as a transaction? Does the bill pay count? Otherwise, not sure what you'd do to get 12. If this requires you to actively do something 12x per month, not worth it. But I can easily set up 12 online bill payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed212fdfbc12e3eee785a6b795226751", "text": "A desktop application that has the same features (although as already stated, nothing will be identical but if you are looking for functionality then certainly there will be) and pretty simple to use was Microsoft Money, however, Microsoft stopped supporting it with newer versions and while the existing versions will work, I still use mine, there will be no future updates. I like the interface, its simple to use and has all the features you want. They abandoned it in favor of Intuit's Quicken but personally I am not a fan of the Quicken interface. They still had a more extensive and probably too much for the average user application called Office Accounting, but they abandoned future updates and supports on that in favor of Intuit's Quickbooks. Again, I am not a fan of the interface but they are very feature rich including invoicing and payroll, again overkill for the average user. They still have the Small Business Accounting in the form of Microsoft Dynamics, but that is utterly overkill for personal use. I generally don't trust online or cloud based accounting solutions like Mint or even Quicken online because I don't trust my information security to some third party without knowing how they are securing it and what will happen to me if/when they are leaked due to breach. So I like to keep everything local to myself and that's a good move for you, you should do that. It seems at the moment the market standard without much competition is Quicken for personal use and Quickbooks for small business. I would recommend you start with Quicken and if your needs increase in the future, you can easily transfer into Quickbooks to scale up as they are fully compatible with each other. Check it out here and compare their products to see what works best for your needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f27667221cca30f0a98511cc22f04d9", "text": "I'm always hesitant to use local credit unions because I love accessing all atms fee free, having services available 24/7, having robust, safe and audited online services, and having a big enough bank that all major third party tools interface with it. Joe Schmo Local Credit Union has a lot of good services, but audited and secure online banking? No fee nationwide ATMs? Native interfacing to major tools? I just don't see it often. I shudder to think of the security at small bank websites, frankly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f124aa4001a9d7b601f65bc11e8e9b50", "text": "Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7488478ce920b35c3d40540eac3f9dfc", "text": "Most modern bank accounts can be set up to automatically pay bills for anyone, even someone who has no control over the account. This account would be in a trustee's name for the untrustworthy party. An automatic transfer could be set up from the source account to the irresponsible party's bank account to pay their allowance. It would be wise to remove all overdraft capability from the recipients account, but the whole system might help them learn some responsibility. There are more formal legal structures for forming a long term care-taking trust (with spendthrift provisions to protect the trust from legal action). The trust would need to be maintained by a trustee, resulting in maintenance fees on the principle. It might also help to know if there are legally recognized factors that impair the beneficiaries ability to take care of themselves (substance abuse, depression, age, mental impairment, etc.), but depending on state law, trusts can be designed very flexibly to cover the lifetime of an heir and even their heirs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8695e8030ee3269d15f22929ed6fbf9f", "text": "I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service? My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3cb261d0561cda92eabd6e103677895", "text": "I use Banktivity. It's very much not free, but it automatically downloads all my bank and credit card activity and has excellent reporting options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "052232e262f151f330a66cf775562616", "text": "I personally use mint.com and find the alerting feature to be handy. The reports and ledger are nice for a web page and attractive, but I use Quicken for really keeping track of my money and budget. Mint.com just doesn't offer the depth I want; but a lack of depth is a feature for some people. The one thing I do is to check my accounts online every couple of days (not just via mint's interface). I am still protected from fraud if someone steals my money regardless of the vector of attack. So mint's fault or not, I have to keep on top of my outgoing and incoming transactions with frequency so I can stop problems before they get too deep. summary: the security is important, but being secure or not doesn't absolve me of being aware of all the transactions on my account. I will still be protected by consumer laws (as much protection as that is) but I can't expect mint to fix any problems it might cause.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532e4e5bd3d0b1ddd617f24d5e5b2c74", "text": "Both Wells Fargo and Chase are participants in clearXchange, which enables the various QuickPay type services to work with each other. They may be using this system rather than an ACH wire transfer to transfer your money (and to verify the account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae462f9a04f15b5f88d1fcf85cf53f7d", "text": "\"Software or any online service fits this category I suppose. There are two apps I pay for that are \"\"free.\"\" Evernote and Pandora. Evernote is free for 40MB, $45/yr for 500MB/mo transfer. Pandora is free for 40hrs/mo, $36/yr unlimited. When I use a free product and hit the limit it's a sign to me that I value that product and the owners deserve to get paid. To me, both products provide value that's well above the cost they are asking. In this case, both products are annual subscriptions, but offer monthly as well. You don't mention the type of product you have, the two I listed are similar in billing type, but very difference end uses. The question is - How do you provide value and make your customers want to pay you? BTW - the ~$40/yr give or take, seems a good price point. Under $50, it feels a fair price to pay for a useful product.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ea222c46b78da5d98cec42d6f91562", "text": "I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46bc1213fb52a6c9ecdc1047f6d59daa", "text": "For double entry bookkeeping, personal or small business, GnuCash is very good. Exists for Mac Os.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f162c873c93008892be6d4e5e9f6351f", "text": "They have recently launched an iphone app 'Billguard' in UK which does accounts aggregation which is similiar to mint.com. You can also use try 'Ontrees' iphone app which is another account aggregation software. I am using Yodlee Money center Website for past 4 years which support lot of bank internationally including all major UK banks and creditcards.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bfb844efdcbda51b6ec1bb6a74c2bfb2", "text": "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbcdc3ea9bf228d4bf12f852eef8e693", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aac84e8f8334ccd8fda74433b189625a", "text": "It's incredibly difficult to beat the market, especially after you're paying out significant fees for managed funds. The Bogleheads have some good things going for them on their low cost Vanguard style funds. The biggest winners in the financial markets are the people collecting fees from churn or setting up the deals which take advantage of less sophisticated/connected players. Buy, Hold and Forget has been shown as a loser as well in this recession. Diversifying and re-balancing however takes advantage of market swings by cashing out winners and buying beaten down stocks. If you take advantages of general market highs and lows (without worrying about strict timing) every few months to re-balance, you buy some protection from crashes in any given sector. One common guideline is to use your age as the percentage of your holdings that are in cash equivalents, rather than stocks. At age 28, at least 28% of my account should be in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc. This should help guide your allocation and re-balancing strategy. Finally, focusing on Growth and Income funds may give you a better shot at above S&P returns, but it's wise to hold a small percentage in the S&P 500 as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb7eb913f9f29b9425752068c1fd065", "text": "\"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "897210fbc785440af682a59544834ec4", "text": "Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a2f3874313270fac9674ad2cccbc5c1", "text": "Excellent Question! I agree with other repliers but there are some uneasy things with index funds. Since your view is death, I will take extremely pessimist view things that may cause it (very big may): I know warnings about stock-picking but, in imperfect world, the above things tend to happen. But to be honest, they feel too much paranoia. Better to keep things simple with good diversification and rebalancing when people live in euphoria/death. You may like Bogleheads.org.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84af74fe96101aba83d1b6e7c3bc8013", "text": "I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b683b5c56dadebd966fea31964fadf1", "text": "\"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985", "text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842ba6cab5bdbcd099f09cd5f35e37ca", "text": "Fair, but to the first point, taking action on the climate change/stranded asset risk would disqualify the fund as a passive investment. Half the point of passive funds is to take that part of risk out of the equation - poor investment decisions - and rely on the average S&amp;P500 performance instead. I get the second point, though I question whether that point has validity until activist investors are in significant, which is a long way off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cbbc2352d0e322816d8a9623eee9235", "text": "\"&gt;those fossil free funds have been outperforming their fossilized index counterparts Why am I not surprised that over a 3 year or less time period, during the worst oil crash in at least 20 years, a fund the excludes that sector is performing better? What a misleading statement. Like saying in early 2000, \"\"oh my tech-free fund is outperforming the funds with tech stocks\"\" while ignoring the dot com bubble bursting having any effect, and implying that tech stocks will never recover.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72728dfe747564351ad248445cf8d524", "text": "There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f373f8d70b137501de20014c0ab9d", "text": "&gt; So what’s the problem? When investors put their money in an index like the S&amp;P 500, they believe that they are just investing in “the market”, broadly. But now, these for-profit indices have made an active decision to exclude certain stocks on the basis of their voting structures. The author doesn't seem to understand the difference between the companies creating the passive funds that track the indices and the companies creating the indices that are being tracked. Indices have always been subject to somewhat arbitrary rules for what is being included and how its value is calculated. So this article is completely missing the point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6", "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\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071c2132ddf7a9b2e7d73def17bc4916", "text": "Wheee . . .what fun . .these fucking bankers never learn and on the other side of the shit spectrum we have the Jolly octopus (AKA Goldman) with investors pulling out of their Rainbow unicorn fund. I am watching you octopus and if you need [help vs the Octopus](http://www.investorclaims.com/Brokerage-Firms/Goldman-Sachs.aspx)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede", "text": "I tried direct indexing the S&amp;P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db5cee669f27b0a3197bf6309cf96007", "text": "Statistically speaking active strategies **are** strictly on par with, or worse when you subtract fees, than passive strategies (regardless of how much time or money you spend investigating companies). Actively managed mutual funds are by and large just a racket where one class of rich people soaks another class of rich people plus some of the middle class. So yeah they should go ahead and call it a day. About time IMO.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be6485d1e027582bd54cfed4272ca86a", "text": "\"Hope springs eternal in the human breast. No actively managed fund has beaten the indices over a long period of time, but over shorter periods, actively managed funds have beaten the indices quite often, sometimes quite spectacularly, and sometimes even for many years in a row. Examples from the past include Fidelity Magellan and Legg Mason Value Trust. So people buy actively managed funds hoping to cash in on such good performance. The difficulty is, of course, that many people don't even think about investing in a fund until it is listed in some \"\"Top Forty Funds of last year\"\" compilation, and for many funds, they have already peaked, and new buyers are often disappointed. Some people who invested earlier plan on getting out of the fund before the fund falls flat on its face, and fewer even succeed in doing so. As to why 401k plans often have high-cost actively managed funds, there are several reasons. A most important one is that there are numerous companies that act as administrators of 401k programs and these companies put together package deals of 401k programs (funds, administrative costs etc), and small employers perforce have to choose from one of these packages. Second, there are various rules that have come into existence since the first days of 401k (and 403b) programs such as the investment choices must include funds of different types, and actively managed funds (large cap, small cap etc) are one of the choices that must be offered. Gone are the days when the only choice was a variable annuity offered by the insurance company administering the 401k program. Finally, program participants also have hopes (cf. opening sentence) and used to demand that the 401k program offer a few actively managed funds, not just index funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c107b901b430498b1ecacaf3deb6978", "text": "\"I have seen Dave Ramsey give extremely bad retirement advice in the past. For example, he turned fund fees into a political issue and said people who worry about mutual fund fees are [\"\"from a liberal political perspective...\"\"](https://youtu.be/zR64-Ea_r5U?t=214) They are *actually* concerned about the [compounding returns of investors ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZvu_h3x1A) and how higher fees will eat at them, rather than the amount of money that investment companies will get in fees. There's no politics involved at all, he's just a blabbering idiot. I don't see any reason to follow his advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39111f34d9ea66aec5d967ac0e8e8f75", "text": "Nice attempt at trying to obfuscate the math by suggesting your wage was half of what you actually got paid.  You were paid $9/hr, not $4.50.  Was your CEO spending billions of other people's money playing martian when he could have been paying his employees instead?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824112e5846e465882fb442b9ec6dd2", "text": "\"As an exercise, I want to give this a shot. I'm not involved in a firm that cares about liquidity so all this stuff is outside my purview. As I understand it, it goes something like this: buy side fund puts an order to the market as a whole (all or most possibly exchanges). HFTs see that order hit the first exchange but have connectivity to exchanges further down the pipe that is faster than the buy side fund. They immediately send their own order in, which reaches exchanges and executes before the buy side fund's order can. They immediately put up an ask, and buy side fund's order hits that ask and is filled (I guess I'm assuming the order was a market order from the beginning). This is in effect the HFT front running the buy side fund. Is this accurate? Even if true, whether I have a genuine issue with this... I'm not sure. Has anyone on the \"\"pro-HFT\"\" side written a solid rebuttal to Lewis and Katsuyama that has solid research behind it?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1619a2901c8114a352d54227320b8370", "text": "\"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "364b20bda72056b70460263d8e3e0193", "text": "Publication 17 Your Income Tax top of page 14 If the direct deposit cannot be done, the IRS will send a check instead. When your girlfriend gets the check, she can endorse it over to you for deposit into your account.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ca4f820b9bdb5a53b055950641355db2", "text": "Do not try to deposit piece wise. Either use the system in complete transparence, or do not use it at all. The fear of having your bank account frozen, even if you are in your rights, is justified. In any case, I don't advise you to put in bank before reaching IRS. Also keep all the proof that you indeed contacted them. (Recommended letter and copy of any form you submit to them) Be ready to also give those same documents to your bank to proove your good faith. If they are wrong, you'll be considered in bad faith until you can proove otherwise, without your bank account. Do not trust their good faith, they are not bad people, but very badly organized with too much power, so they put the burden of proof on you just because they can. If it is too burdensome for you then keep cash or go bitcoin. (but the learning curve to keep so much money in bitcoin secure against theft is high) You should declare it in this case anyway, but at least you don't have to fear having your money blocked arbitrarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22", "text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4726389971e8ff52e63f8ca632c0f16a", "text": "What I'm reading is that they subtracted the $85 you owe them and they're cutting you a cashier's check for the rest. Ethically speaking, you owed them the money, they subtracted it and made you a check for the rest. Once you cash that check, nobody owes anyone anything in this equation. Sounds like they're in the clear. Legally speaking, I have no idea, since I'm not a lawyer, but even if it was not legal, good luck getting the $85 back without spending far more in retaining a lawyer and fighting it in court. Even fighting it in small claims court will take more of your time than $85 is worth. If it's your time that is the problem, 12 days is not horrible in banking terms. Yes, we're spoiled now by ACH transfers and same day deposit availability, but since you're retired, I'm sure if you think back you'll remember when it used to take two business weeks to clear a check... TLDR; cancel future deposits to that bank, find a new bank, then forget this fiasco and get your revenge by enjoying your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd2b03ed3cd4d1e068eb182200ec4848", "text": "\"What they are doing is wrong. The IRS and the state might not be happy with what they are doing. One thing you can ask for them to do is to give you a credit card for business and travel expenses. You will still have to submit receipts for expenses, but it will also make it clear to the IRS that these checks are not income. Keep the pay stubs for the year, or the pdf files if they don't give you a physical stub. Pay attention to the YTD numbers on each stub to make sure they aren't sneaking in the expenses as income. If they continue to do this, ask about ownership of the items purchased, since you will be paying the tax shouldn't you own it? You can in the future tell them \"\"I was going to buy X like the customer wanted, but I just bought a new washer at home and their wasn't enough room on the credit card. Maybe next month\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9dca32b8177f2bddd8208506c0d1b84", "text": "You proceed with a proper legal advice. You should not ignore IRS letters. You should have taken your chances in trying to reach a compromise with them, but that ship has likely sailed already. You might want to consider bankruptcy. Ask your parents for a couple of hundreds of dollars to pay for a legal consultation with a lawyer and a CPA and proceed from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "072994dbe625e6a32f9f58bd362b5233", "text": "There is no law requiring someone to return a refused check. You need to clarify whether this payment is to establish a retainer, or to pay for services rendered. Either way you should stop payment on the check and send them a certified letter explaining that you are stopping payment on the check because they refused it. If the payment is to establish a retainer, then the issue is simple: the lawyer requires $10,000 as a retainer before you can engage them and until then you have no relationship with them. If that is the amount they want, then less than that is not accepted. If the payment is for services rendered already and you owe them money, then it is a completely different situation. Refusing partial payment means they are getting ready to sue you. In a collection suit, the larger the amount is, the better. Normally, someone owed money will only refuse a partial payment if they anticipate having to sue the debtor and they want to maximize their leverage in case of a court judgement in their favor. A creditor has the right to refuse a partial payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db", "text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73b127d58b51f1016763b2b24a668843", "text": "\"They're hiding income. The IRS is a likely candidate for who they are hiding it from but not the only option. Another possibility that comes to mind is someone who had a judgment against them--a check made out to \"\"cash\"\" could be handled by someone else and thus not ever appear in their bank accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d75dff954aeb4f366304acd2900b66ae", "text": "How would I go about this so that I can start using this money? You would open the LLC. The checks were not written out to you, they were written out to the LLC. Only the LLC can endorse them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f69580b17dd1e0f0938967cdcd6d0f", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "923c83903e086d58d9dbb0ef7d9916a7", "text": "Rent deposit returned to you is not an income. Its your money to begin with. The homeowner is taxed on taking it and can expense the refund, but for you - there's no taxable event. ATM rebate is what it is - rebate. A cash discount over the money paid. Basically - the bank refunded you a fee you paid (ATM rebate is a refund of the ATM fee you paid to a third-party ATM operator). Again - your money. The ATM operator and the bank both have taxable income/deduction, but its not your problem. You - just got your money back. No income, no taxable event. Neither should appear on your tax forms, and similarly nor should credit card points, cash rebates, frequent flyer miles, etc. All are in fact either a refund of your money paid or a merchant discount to you, not an income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "765dc468438264b52683a3b3d7dcbb3e", "text": "Unfortunately assets placed in a safety deposit box are not covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC). Unless the bank is found to be negligent in the way it handled or protected your safety deposit box, neither them nor their private insurance company will reimburse you for the loss. Find out if in the duration you had your box with them, they moved, transitioned or merged with another entity. In this specific situation, you may be able to demonstrate negligence on the part of the banks as they have seemingly misplaced your box during their transition phase, and depending upon the value of the items placed in your safety deposit box, you may be entitled to some form of recovery. Some homeowner's insurance policies may also cover the loss, but if you didn't document what you kept in the box, you have difficulty verifying proof of the value. Valuables are often lost but documents can often be reconstructed. You can get stock and bonds by paying a fee for new certificates. For wills and trusts, you can reach out to the lawyer that prepared them for a copy. You should always keep 3 copies of such documents. When you put stuff in the box, always videotape it (photographs can be challenged) but if the video shows it was put in there, although it can still be taken out by you after you turn off the camera, yields more weight in establishing content and potential value. Also know the value of the items and check with your homeowner policy to make sure the default amount covers it, if not then you may need to include a rider to add the difference in value and the video, receipts, appraisals and such will serve you well in the future in such unfortunate circumstances. If the contents of a safety deposit box are lost because you didn't pay the fee, then depending on the state you are in the time frame might vary (3 years on average), but none the less they are sent to the State's unclaimed property/funds department. You can search for these online often times or by contacting the state. It would help for you to find out which scenario you are in, their fault or yours, and proceed accordingly. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66a88f1661186e80991916393fcc3437", "text": "Something like this sort of thing happened to me but with Chase bank. The county made a mistake on our taxes and forgot to give us the right deductions and we got a whopping high property tax bill. Since we did have an escrow account the bank just paid the taxes and raised our mortgage by a nearly unaffordable 60% or so even though we called the bank and told them not to pay the tax bill as it was being disputed. By the time we got the tax issues sorted out Chase refused to adjust the mortgage. The only way we were able to get out of it was to refinance with another bank and opt out of the escrow account and handle taxes on our own, which fixed the whole problem. It seemed an awful lot like an attempt to force us into a foreclosure. If we didn't have the money to refinance we would have barely been able to afford the mortgage payment. Why they would want to do that I have no idea. It really sucked though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d9aa347dd6586e63001086f0a889da", "text": "California is very aggressive when it comes to determining residency. While you have a legitimate defense, I suggest talking with a California-licensed CPA or EA practicing in California, which are experienced in dealing with the FTB residency audits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49fcb429b4cc17c2db360a6d3770a84a", "text": "Real world case: IRS: You owe us $x. You didn't report your income from job y. My mother: I didn't work for y. I don't even know who y is. IRS: If the W-2 is wrong, talk to them to get it fixed. My mother: I can't find y. Please give me an address or phone. IRS: We can't. You talk to them and get it fixed. I know this dragged on for more than a year, they never mentioned the final outcome and they're gone now so I can't ask.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a41efbee5c826099835787e354a813b0", "text": "I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bb11528f43919b506fbdf9a93c675b3", "text": "Look for EU banks that have US branches. Open an account there and look for the SWIFT code of your bank in US. Withdraw money using SWIFT US code.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bc6e266b59ecc292bde5266b4226db53", "text": "\"The solution I've come up with is to keep income in CAD, and Accounts Receivable in USD. Every time I post an invoice it prompts for the exchange rate. I don't know if this is \"\"correct\"\" but it seems to be preserving all of the information about the transactions and it makes sense to me. I'm a programmer, not an accountant though so I'd still appreciate an answer from someone more familiar with this topic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "311332c16f52022baed996f2c7cdfc26", "text": "You could use paypal to transfer money. You can pay with paypal and your UK contact could transfer the money to his bank account through paypal. I just received money this way from the US and paid 9 EUR for this. Receiving the funds is as quickly as clicking a button on the paypal site. Transfering it (without costs) took 1-3 days). It is by far the easiest way. If you are uncomfortable using paypal, the other option would be through your own bank account, where you would transfer using IBAN/SWIFT. The SWIFT bank account is usually the IBAN code plus a branch code. Often it is difficult to find the branch code, in that case you can use the IBAN+XXX. In the latter things might be delayed, but I actually haven't noticed the delay yet, since international transfer always seem to take between 1 and 10 days. The international transfering of money costs, except if it is within the EU region. The way to transfer money through Internet banking differs, from bank to bank. They keywords you need to look for are: SEPA, SWIFT, IBAN or international transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81736205bbbb2bef19b6b96f71dcb2db", "text": "\"You might convert all your money in local currency but you need take care of following tips while studying abroad.Here are some money tips that can be useful during a trip abroad. Know about fees :- When you use a debit card or credit card in a foreign country, there are generally two types of transaction fees that may apply: Understand exchange rates :- The exchange rate lets you know the amount of nearby money you can get for each U.S. dollar, missing any expenses. There are \"\"sell\"\" rates for individuals who are trading U.S. dollars for foreign currency, and, the other way around, \"\"purchase\"\" rates. It's a smart thought to recognize what the neighborhood money is worth in dollars so you can comprehend the estimation of your buys abroad. Sites like X-Rates offer a currency converter that gives the current exchange rate, so you can make speedy comparisons. You can utilize it to get a feel for how much certain amount (say $1, $10, $25, $50, $100) are worth in local currency. Remember that rates fluctuate, so you will be unable to suspect precisely the amount of a buy made in a foreign currency will cost you in U.S. dollars. To get cash, check for buddy banks abroad:- If you already have an account with a large bank or credit union in the U.S., you may have an advantage. Being a client of a big financial institution with a large ATM system may make it easier to find a subsidiary cash machine and stay away from an out-of-system charge. Bank of America, for example, is a part of the Global ATM Alliance, which lets clients of taking an interest banks use their debit cards to withdraw money at any Alliance ATM without paying the machine's operator an access fee, in spite of the fact that you may at present be charged for converting dollars into local currency used for purchases. Citibank is another well known bank for travelers because it has 45,000 ATMs in more than 30 countries, including popular study-abroad destinations such as the U.K., Italy and Spain. ATMs in a foreign country may allow withdrawals just from a financial records, and not from savings so make sure to keep an adequate checking balance. Also, ATM withdrawal limits will apply just as they do in the U.S., but the amount may vary based on the local currency and exchange rates. Weigh the benefits of other banks :- For general needs, online banks and even foreign banks can also be good options. With online banks, you don’t have to visit physical branches, and these institutions typically have lower fees. Use our checking account tool to find one that’s a good fit. Foreign banks:- Many American debit cards may not work in Europe, Asia and Latin America, especially those that don’t have an EMV chip that help prevent fraud. Or some cards may work at one ATM, but not another. One option for students who expect a more extended stay in a foreign country is to open a new account at a local bank. This will let you have better access to ATMs, and to make purchases more easily and without as many fees. See our chart below for the names of the largest banks in several countries. Guard against fraud and identity theft:- One of the most important things you can do as you plan your trip is to let your bank know that you’ll be abroad. Include exact countries and dates, when possible, to avoid having your card flagged for fraud. Unfortunately, incidents may still arise despite providing ample warning to your bank. Bring a backup credit card or debit card so you can still access some sort of money in case one is canceled. Passports are also critical — not just for traveling from place to place, but also as identification to open a bank account and for everyday purposes. You’ll want to make two photocopies and give one to a friend or family member to keep at home and put the other in a separate, secure location, just in case your actual passport is lost or stolen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96be13de93592923809ea5d881ff9459", "text": "\"The simple answer would be - if you want to take Euros from Germany to Spain as cash and deposit them, you're not breaking any laws, there is nothing to declare to customs (you're still in the EU), it is not \"\"income\"\" so there is nothing to tax, and your bank should be able to receive it without issue (no currency conversion after all). It does however come with the risk of loss/theft en route. So it really depends on how comfortable you are walking around with that much on your person. If you don't want to carry that much around and your banks are imposing unreasonable fees, here's something you could investigate further (I have not tested it myself): Transferwise offers a service that lets people send money to foreign accounts (in different currencies) for a small fee, at mid-market rates. However, they also offer a \"\"request money\"\" feature which allows EUR-EUR transfers (and some other same currency transfers). So perhaps you could use this feature to simply request money from yourself. The requester puts in how much they want to receive. Then they send a generated link to the other party. When clicked, that link sets up a transaction for the requested amount, and sometimes a nominal fee (I created a link for a GBP-GBP transfer and it wanted 1 pound extra, but when I did the same for EUR-EUR it didn't want any extra). I assume you would need two Transferwise accounts, though maybe not? And I'm not sure whether doing this is technically allowed in their terms of service, so you should read those to be sure. The advantage, if this works, is that neither bank sees it as a \"\"transfer\"\". Rather, the originating bank makes a payment to Transferwise, and then Transferwise makes a deposit to the receiving account. So I can't imagine either bank would be able to impose their foreign-bank-transfer fees for the transaction. https://transferwise.com/request-money I have used Transferwise for currency conversions, but not the request money feature, maybe other users could chime in if they have used it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d", "text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08921e6ff179ad1d23307d2cf828f157", "text": "\"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e378ee1d0052e8237391cc8a26c5555", "text": "How should we disregard leverage when it's the leverage that creates the 'wipe-out' potential? If you simply convert 100K EUR to USDollars, you dollars might then fluctuate a few thousand, maybe even 10K over a year, but the guy that only put up 1000 EUR to do this has a disproportionally higher risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eefc2de9693868d1aea53b7a9f8281ef", "text": "You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710", "text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11c080592426edb765b2bbb6e1a28c84", "text": "\"From personal experience of having been abroad for a while for work, I found the simplest method to be to Paypal it to myself from one country to the other. Yes, you incur a transaction fee - but it was always less expensive than \"\"real\"\" bank fees for me. Also - if you use a bank that has offices in both countries, adding an authorized user with a debit card and having them visit the bank every X often and making a withdrawal is a viable route.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e651432466f0d37eb0787dcba0048ec2", "text": "There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3dda95b6fe5e60b7c1a455d81fc346f", "text": "\"I cannot speak for Paypal specifically and I doubt anyone who doesn't actually work on their internal automated payment systems could. However, I can speak from experiencing in working on automated forex transaction systems and tell you what many institutions do and it is often NOT based on live rates. There is no law stating an institution must honor a specific market exchange rate. Institutions can determine their own rates how and when they want to. However, there is some useful information on their website: https://www.paypal.com/an/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/sell/mc/mc_convert-outside \"\"The most readily available information on currency exchange rates is based on interbank exchange rates. Interbank exchange rates are established in the course of currency trading among a global network of over 1,000 banks, and are not available through consumer or retail channels.\"\" This leads me to believe they pull exchange rates from either Oanda or XE periodically and then use these rates throughout the day to conduct business. Paypal does not disclose who they use to determine rates. And it's highly doubtful they do this for every transaction (using live rates). Even if they did, there would be no way for you to check and be certain of a particular exchange rate as paypal states: \"\" Consumers may use these rates as a reference, but should not expect to use interbank rates in transactions that involve currency conversion. To obtain actual retail rates, contact your local financial institution or currency exchange, or check the rate displayed in your PayPal transaction.\"\" This is partly because rates can change by the second just like stock prices or anything else which is susceptible to the open market's variables of supply, demand news events etc. So, even if you check the rates on Oanda (which you can do here: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) you are not going to get a 100% accurate representation of what you would get by doing an exchange immediately afterwards from Paypal or any other financial institution. However, if you want to estimate, using Oanda's currency converter will likely get you close in most scenarios. That is assuming Paypal doesn't charge a premium for the exchange, which they may. That is also assuming they use live rates, it's also possible they only update their rates based on market rates periodically and not for every transaction. You may want to test this by checking the exchange rate on your transaction and comparing that to the Oanda rates at the same time.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "679ced9e58378ae7fe027ef282d26078", "text": "IngDirect has this concept of sub accounts inside a main account - that might be perfect for what you are looking for. To clarify, you basically have one physical account with logical sub account groupings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f02b6776c232036acc676e46c4a1d705", "text": "\"I sort of do this with credit cards. I actually have 4 AMEX cards that I've accumulated over the years. Certain types of expenses go on each card (\"\"General expenses\"\", recurring bills, car-related and business-related) I use AMEX because they have pretty rich iPhone/Android applications to access your accounts and a rich set of alerts. So if we exceed our budget for gas, we get an email about it. Do whatever works for you, but you need to avoid the temptation to over-complicate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acdbf60fe9e431c86efde242dd2a9ae8", "text": "Have you looked at mint? Their budgeting feature can track spending against your budget categories across your checking and credit card accounts. Not the same as the envelope system -- so if you need the built-in limitation that this provides, it may not work for you. But it is a low-effort, automatic system that does the tracking for you if you have your spending mostly under control.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8695e8030ee3269d15f22929ed6fbf9f", "text": "I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service? My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ccd5231b27144cc325ae0292bc69d661", "text": "\"I started storing and summing all my receipts, bills, etc. It has the advantage of letting me separate expenses by category, but it's messy and it takes a long time. It sounds from this like you are making your summaries far too detailed. Don't. Instead, start by painting with broad strokes. For example, if you spent $65.17 at the grocery store, don't bother splitting that amount into categories like toiletries, hygiene products, food, and snacks: just categorize it as \"\"grocery spending\"\" and move on to the next line on your account statement. Similarly, unless your finances are heavily reliant on cash, don't worry about categorizing each cash expense; rather, just categorize the withdrawal of cash as miscellaneous and don't spend time trying to figure out exactly where the money went after that. Because honestly, you probably spent it on something other than savings. Because really, when you are just starting out getting a handle on your spending, you don't need all the nitty-gritty details. What you need, rather, is an idea of where your money is going. Figure out half a dozen or so categories which make sense for you to categorize your spending into (you probably have some idea of where your money is going). These could be loans, cost of living (mortgage/rent, utilities, housing, home insurance, ...), groceries, transportation (car payments, fuel, vehicle taxes, ...), savings, and so on -- whatever fits your situation. Add a miscellaneous category for anything that doesn't neatly fit into one of the categories you thought of. Go back something like 3-4 months among your account statements, do a quick categorization for each line on your account statements into one of these categories, and then sum them up per category and per month. Calculate the monthly average for each category. That's your starting point: the budget you've been living by (intentionally or not). After that, you can decide how you want to allocate the money, and perhaps dig a bit more deeply into some specific category. Turns out you are spending a lot of money on transportation which you didn't expect? Look more closely at those line items and see if there's something you can cut. Are you spending more money at the grocery store than you thought? Then look more closely at that. And so on. Once you know where you are and where you want to be (such as for example bumping the savings category by $200 per month), you can adjust your budget to take you closer to your goals. Chances are you won't realistically be able to do an about-face turn on the spot, but you can try to reduce some discretionary category by, say, 10% each month, and transfer that into savings instead. That way, in 6-7 months, you have cut that category in half.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "439dada372831d99bbfc79feee6e036b", "text": "More moving parts will make your budget harder to keep track of, not simpler. Budget systems like You Need a Budget recommend simplifying your accounts, even if the various accounts give you specialized bonuses like rewards for restaurants or gasoline or travel. The effort of keeping track of all the options and accounts can outweigh the value you get from them. Instead, I recommend using a simple and structured budget system (like YNAB) that walks you through all of the steps toward building good habits and keeping them simple so that you can maintain the habit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0efe2844118714ca1c92e0350393e1cb", "text": "You can take a shortcut and make a few cumulative transactions, maybe just estimate how much of your spending landed in each of your budget categories, but you will lose a lot of the value that you were building for yourself by tracking your spending during the earlier months. I reconcile my budget and categorize my spending on a monthly basis. It's always a chore to pull out the big stack of receipts and plow through them, but I've learned the value of having an accurate picture of where all my money went. There is no clean way to fake it. You can either take the time and reconcile your spending, or you can take a short cut. It probably renders your efforts to track everything from the beginning of the year invalid though. If you want to start over this month (as you did at the beginning of the year) that would probably be a cleaner way to reconcile things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a898839170eac251d76c0ad96338106", "text": "Being new does not allow me yet to vote on your question, but what a good question it is. We share our opinion in separating finances in our very well going mariage. Currently I have found a sort of okay solution in two websites. These are http://www.yunoo.nl and http://www.moneytrackin.com/. You can actually tag spendings with multiple tags. I don't like the idea that the data is on a remote server, but since I have not found a proper local software solution, I just naively trust their promise that your data is save. Then again our financial situation is not that special.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101bd8af9cec549d6f124020231f8ebe", "text": "\"These sort of issues in structuring your personal finances relative to expenses can get complicated quickly, as your example demonstrates. I would recommend a solution that reduces duplication as much as possible- and depending on what information you're interested in tracking you could set it up in very different ways. One solution would be to create virtual sub accounts of your assets, and to record the source of money rather than the destination. Thus, when you do an expense report, you can limit on the \"\"his\"\" or \"\"hers\"\" asset accounts, and see only the expenses which pertain to those accounts (likewise for liabilities/credit cards). If, on the other hand, you're more interested in a running sum of expenses- rather than create \"\"Me\"\" and \"\"Spouse\"\" accounts at every leaf of the expense tree, it would make much more sense to create top level accounts for Expenses:His:etc and Expenses:Hers:etc. Using this model, you could create only the sub expense accounts that apply for each of your spending (with matching account structures for common accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f58f8afc6afbfa9998c18fedb9aa1367", "text": "I agree with Option 3 from the accepted answer (His/Hers/Joint), but with one caveat (that my wife and I are finding out). Once you have children, if your income is in the mid-range where you are not paycheck to paycheck, but are not floating in excess money either (ie, you can have a vacation, but you have to plan for it and save up for a few months to do so), the child-relative expenses begin to be a huge factor in your overall budget, such that (particularly if one partner does more of the child-related buying) it can be hard to really keep up the 3 account separation, because those child-related expenses may end up being all of one earner's paycheck. We originally did the 3 way split, where we took rent, car, and utilities from joint (ie, each transferred a reasonable portion to the joint account to cover), and just bought groceries each occasionally such that it was generally a reasonable split (as we both shopped for groceries and both earned close enough to each other that it worked out). But once we had kids, it ended up being very different, and we eventually had to more properly budget all of our funds as if they were basically joint funds. While we still do have separate accounts (and, largely, separate credit cards/etc., except for one joint card), it's almost pro forma now due to the kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "002e6b42dcf753ed26b4cc285fc9a1f4", "text": "\"I'm not convinced this is completely possible without additional data. I'm categorizing my purchases now, and I keep running into things like \"\"was this hardware store purchase for home repair, hobby tools and supplies, cookware, ...\"\" Ditto for department stores, ditto for cash purchases which appear only as an ATM withdrawal. Sometimes I remember, sometimes I guess, sometimes I just give up. In the end, this budget tracking isn't critical for me so that's good enough. If you really want accuracy, though, I think you are stuck with keeping all your receipts, of taking notes, so you can resolve these gaps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cb596c3982679cb59da8ba7d152b20e", "text": "Proposed solutions 1 and 3 sound like extra work. Is a dual-file system something that you and your wife will be willing to maintain? Having separate files may better reflect your financial structure, but be sure that the expense of added time and overhead is worth it to you in the long run. You could track your own accounts, your wife's accounts, and your joint accounts in the same Money file (solution 2). Getting married can be a simple matter of adding the wife's accounts and recording transfers as money flows into joint accounts. This would make transfers between accounts easy to record and would afford easy reporting of overall income and spending. To maintain a degree of continuity for your own accounts, customize some reports to exclude your wife's accounts and joint accounts. A note about Microsoft Money I think Microsoft Money is fantastic and I have no plans to stop using it despite the fact that Microsoft killed the product line. All Money users should be made aware of the free Sunset version that requires no online activation. Also check out PocketSense, a collection of free Python scripts that can download transactions from some banks directly into Money. I use and highly recommend both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5a8f00d13d6121c63e2703247e507dc", "text": "\"Bookkeeping and double-entry accounting is really designed for tracking the finances of a single entity. It sounds like you're trying to use it to keep multiple entities' information, which may somewhat work but isn't really going to be the easiest to understand. Here's a few approaches: In this approach, the books are entirely from your perspective. So, if you're holding onto money that \"\"really\"\" belongs to your kids, then what you've done is you're taking a loan from them. This means that you should record it as a liability on your books. If you received $300, of which $100 was actually yours, $100 belongs to Kid #1 (and thus is a loan from him), and $100 belongs to Kid #2 (and thus is a loan from her), you'd record it just that way. Note that you only received $100 of income, since that's the only money that's \"\"yours\"\", and the other $200 you're only holding on behalf of your kids. When you give the money to your kids or spend it on their behalf, then you debit the liability accordingly and credit the Petty Cash or other account you spent it from. If you wanted to do this in excruciating detail, then your kids could each have their own set of books, in which they would see a transfer from their own Income:Garage Sale account into their Assets:Held by Parents account. For this, you just apportion each of your asset accounts into subaccounts tracking how much money each of you has in it. This lets you treat the whole family as one single entity, sharing in the income, expenses, etc. It lets you see the whole pool of money as being the family's, but also lets you track internally some value of assets for each person. Whenever you spend money you need to record which subaccount it came from, and it could be more challenging if you actually need to record income or expenses separately per person (for some sort of tax reasons, say) unless you also break up each Income and Expense account per person as well. (In which case, it may be easier just to have each person keep their entirely separate set of books.) I don't see a whole lot of advantages, but I'll mention it because you suggested using equity accounts. Equity is designed for tracking how much \"\"capital\"\" each \"\"investor\"\" contributes to the entity, and for tracking a household it can be hard for that to make a lot of sense, though I suppose it can be done. From a math perspective, Equity is treated exactly like Liabilities in the accounting equation, so you could end up using it a lot like in my Approach #1, where Equity represents how much you owe each of the kids. But in that case, I'd find it simpler to just go ahead and treat them as Liabilities. But if it makes you feel better to just use the word Equity rather than Liability, to represent that the kids are \"\"investing\"\" in the household or the like, go right ahead. If you're going to look at the books from your perspective and the kids as investing in it, the transaction would look like this: And it's really all handled in the same way an Approach #1. If on the other hand, you really want the books to represent \"\"the family\"\", then you'd need to have the family's books really look more like a partnership. This is getting a bit out of my league, but I'd imagine it'd be something like this: That is to say, the family make the sale, and has the money, and the \"\"shareholders\"\" could see it as such, but don't have any obvious direct claim to the money since there hasn't been a distribution to them yet. Any assets would just be assumed to be split three ways, if it's an equal partnership. Then, when being spent, the entity would have an Expense transaction of \"\"Dividend\"\" or the like, where it distributes the money to the shareholders so that they could do something with it. Alternatively, you'd just have the capital be contributed, And then any \"\"income\"\" would have to be handled on the individual books of the \"\"investors\"\" involved, as it would represent that they make the money, and then contributed it to the \"\"family books\"\". This approach seems much more complicated than I'd want to do myself, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad9cb857262f4bf18f2d122d4de61a5b", "text": "\"This style of budgeting is referred to as the 'Envelope' method. It could be done by withdrawing cash from the checking account and putting into envelopes (which I used to do for my Grocery & Clothing funds). I currently do this in GnuCash by creating sub-accounts of the actual bank accounts. The software rolls up the numbers so when I am looking at the \"\"real\"\" account I see the number that matches what the bank says. It is not, however, web-based. You should be able to do the same in other tools if they allow you to create sub-accounts, or have some budgeting feature built in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5ffad73cd2b4b8a5ba47181b82e005c", "text": "\"How about the new Mastercard \"\"In Control\"\" card http://www.pivotalpayments.com/ca/industry-news/mastercard-introduces-in-control-program-to-help-consumers-budget-800077802/ You can set budgets at your bank and go between getting alerts when you go over, or completely declined if you are out of money. There are going to be obvious loop holes and slack in the system, but this system seems like a pretty neat start. Combine this with a bank account that does bill pay and you might have something to work with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c30e030994a0056aa4467e006942217", "text": "You might check out Thrive. They're almost a carbon copy of Mint from the last I checked, but with some additional and (I think) more useful metrics. For instance, they seemed to help more to plan for future expenses in addition to keeping tabs on individual budgets the way Mint does. Everything is automated in the same way as Mint, though I'm not sure their breadth is as far-reaching now since Mint was bought out by Intuit. Nevertheless, whenever I've had a question on Thrive, I shoot it to the devs and I get a very personal and courteous response within the day. So it depends on what you're looking for: Mint can almost guarantee any US bank will be accessible through their site, however Thrive will work much harder to gain your favor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ecad338e1109d173bd965ba1f489795", "text": "\"What I've found works best when working on my personal budget is to track my income and spending two different ways: bank accounts and budget categories. Here is what I mean: When I deposit my paycheck, I do two things with it: It goes into my checking account, so the balance of my checking account goes up by the amount of my paycheck. I also \"\"deposit\"\" the money from my checking account into my various budget category balances. This is separate from my bank account balances. Some of my paycheck money goes into my groceries category, some goes into clothing, some into car fuel, entertainment, mortgage, phone, etc. Some goes into longer range bills that only happen once or twice a year, such as car insurance, life insurance, property tax, etc. Some goes into savings goals of ours, such as car replacement, vacation, furniture, etc. Every dollar that we have in a bank account or in cash in our wallets is also accounted for in a budget category. If you add up the balances of our bank accounts and cash, and you add up the balances of our budget categories, they add up to the same number. When we make a purchase, this also gets accounted for twice: The appropriate bank account (or cash wallet) balance gets reduced by the purchase amount. The appropriate budget category gets reduced by the purchase amount. In this way, we don't really need to worry about having separate bank accounts for different purposes. We don't need to put our savings goal money in a separate bank account from our grocery money, if we don't want to. The budget category accounting keeps track of how much money is allocated to each purpose. Now, the budget category amounts are not spent yet; the money in them is still in our bank account, and we can move money around in the categories, if we change our mind on how to allocate them. For example, if we don't spend all of our gas money for the month, we can either keep that money in the gas category, or we can move it to a different category, such as the car replacement category or the vacation category. If the phone bill is more than we expect, we can move money around from a different category to cover it. Now, back to your question: We allocate some money from each paycheck into our furniture category. But the money is not really spent until we actually buy some furniture. When we do, the furniture category balance and bank account balance both go down by the amount of the purchase. All of this can be kept track of on the computer in a spreadsheet. However, it's not easy to keep track of so many categories and bank balances. An easier solution is custom budgeting software designed for this purpose. I use and recommend YNAB.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65c0e3b68efbc4fd3788f304e00d70b7", "text": "\"I'm currently using You Need A Budget for this. It lets you track spending my category and \"\"save\"\" money in particular accounts from month to month. They also have some strong opinions about how one should manage one's cashflow, so check it out to see if it'll work for you. It's neither web-based nor free, but the licensing terms are very reasonable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb4c6f31eaea21b14c16f88eaab362c", "text": "\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2df7a1cf3ca314dbb9aa09b8944a2b57", "text": "I went here: Consumer Loan Law. It seems that a consumer loan is anything other than a business loan or mortgage. However, in California it seems to include a mortgage. It's a bit weird to see that a HEL can be considered a consumer loan even if it is the primary or the only loan on a property. Getting a HEL can be a great low cost way to (re)finance a property as they tend to have low or no closing costs and lower interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a176cb795735a8a2d21c2fd59138c4e8", "text": "Here's a good definition of a consumer loan: What is a Consumer Loan? As@Pete B. pointed out, there are some states (California loves to be the oddball, doesn't it?) that treat some loans in a more unconventional manner, but the gist of it is that a consumer loan is normally unsecured, meaning there's no collateral or lien associated with it. A signature loan would be a good example of a consumer loan. Many times, loans made by non-banks (finance companies that loan for consumer purchases, for instance) would be considered to be consumer loans. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5c4552d9a151aba8324f246f5b6d05e0", "text": "It depends on the terms. Student loans are often very low interest loans which allow you to spread your costs of education over a long time without incurring too much interest. They are often government subsidized. On the other hand, you often get better mortgage rates if you can bring a down payment for the house. Therefore, it might be more beneficial for you to use money for a down payment than paying off the student load.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3c9107673fd5927e3e38d0ef07c60d", "text": "It was both. CDOs also contributed. Unfortunately, when the bankers kept packing up their loans they lost track of the risk as did the financial institutions offering instruments to deleverage that risk. So when the subprime borrowers began to fail the institutions started getting hit with risk that they hadn't prepared for. Flippers and home owners who used their homes as ATMs then saw their home values crash and it all fell apart. We are seeing some of this again with owners getting more HELOCs but the real concern is with car loans, credit card and student loan debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa4237b59e1cb05f8f9db405fdf2cdb9", "text": "Wait are you saying you have the opportunity to buy bonds at this rate and the company is issuing loans at this rate to consumers? Sounds like a win for the bank, a win for it's shareholders, and a win for the bondholder. (Of course, you'll probably be paying a premium for a 25% coupon bond if that's really what's you're talking about.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b016ad4e91e887d07872457741a50b2c", "text": "Can anyone recommend a good textbook that covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or more broadly the US home mortgage market? A basic search seems to mostly turn up books that aim to make an ideological point rather than attempt to provide an actual explanation. I have a basic financial knowledge including a basic understanding of derivatives at the level of say the textbook by Hull, but know very little about the US mortgage market specifically. I don't mind technical detail, and am not afraid of math. I don't mind if the book is broader, as long as it includes a reasonably in depth look at these GSEs and their role. This seems to be a pretty basic piece of knowledge for many financial professionals, so I assume there must be at least one standard textbook on this that I just haven't been able to find. EDIT: I'm looking for something post 2008 of course.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e09460d1db22e0739c0c89a96007457", "text": "I'm not sure the reasoning still holds though. If you default on your student loan, your diploma doesn't get repossessed. There's a signifiant moral hazard associated with student loans. A mortgage on the other hand is around a very physical item. Though I can still banks lobbying for better rules, that would be hugely in the consumers disadvantage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1dea617c76c9c16a9eff8182e9a3d2e", "text": "This is generally wrong. For the vast majority of the time that underqualified alt-a and option-arm mortgages were being written, Fannie and Freddie were not buying, and they were never huge holders of these mortgages. Fannie and Freddie have minimum qualifications standards. However, as time went on, Fannie and Freddie did load up on the securities (not the mortgages), which were of course still problematic. But the liquidity crunch of 08 was not substantially contributed to by Fannie and Freddie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b9b09480180e3d1bd2933988607e7ea", "text": "I think the discrepancy you are seeing is in the detail of what happens once you pay off your student loan. If you take your monthly payment for your student loan, and apply that to your mortgage once the student loan is payed off, paying the highest interest loan will cone out ahead. If, on the other hand, you take your student loan payment and do something else with it (not pay down your mortgage), you would be better off paying on your mortgage. Say you have $1000 to put towards either loan, and there is 5 years to pay on the student loan, and 25 years to pay on the mortgage. By paying on the student loan you are, roughly, saving 5 years of 5% interest on that $1000. By paying on the mortgage, you are saving 25 years of 3% interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab823c39820c52a37e205e57d69d4c3d", "text": "You can explore the scenarios in which it is better to rent or to buy using this application: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ In the possibly unlikely scenario shown below, at the term of the mortgage (20 years) the tenant and the buyer have practically the same return on investment. At this point the tenant's savings would be sufficient to buy a house equivalent to the buyer's, and this would be the advisable course of action (based on the figures alone).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea", "text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "933d4d77ab71aaf0bdb5e1d198ab6f1b", "text": "When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis. Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries. Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting. But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices. I think this could be down. If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble. Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit. Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "662244bb697ba42ca630f74cd02a7791", "text": "Surely some borrowers and lenders make decisions about making and taking loans based on the actual interest rates on the actual loans? In which case it doesn't matter so much if the rates are calculated based on a fictional assumption about something. At the end of the day every borrower or lender in the market makes their own decision about which lending contracts they take part in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50c7e3ea42c36ece76e0b2aa28f33a4d", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cityfalcon.com/blog/investments/student-loan-debt-new-mortgage-crisis/?utm_campaign=ao_reddit) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; Costs of living, especially for those attending universities in cities like New York or London, also account for a nontrivial portion of the debt. &gt; Is the student debt bubble in the United States the next mortgage crisis? &gt; One major difference between the student debt problem and the mortgage crisis is the lack of CDOs and CDSs. The thread that connected banks, governments, individuals and economies were the CDO and CDS. With a complex system of mortgage securitization and insurance against those securities, the system effectively collapsed itself. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79mt1s/student_loan_debt_the_new_mortgage_crisis_in_2018/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237528 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **student**^#2 **education**^#3 **economy**^#4 **borrowed**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fd042a679b503668b1e281f14f32f9", "text": "Cynical answer: Real Estate agents make money on commission from sale of houses, so their compensation is tied to the home price. Banks make money off loans, so it is in their interest to make larger loans (as long as the loan gets paid). So their is a tension at the bank between selling a larger mortgage, and ensuring that their customer can pay the mortgage. Gross income is easier to check, and the taxes at a given income are fairly predictable. And banks realized that people can change their medical and retirement deductions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d9180f70d0802c2ce787ee20f2097e", "text": "\"In a domestic setting, Letters of Credit are often used to build public works needed to support a development. So if you're bulldozing a few 3 story buildings to build a 50 story tower, the municipality will build appropriate water/sewer/gas/road infrastructure, and draw from the developer's letter of credit to fund it. The 'catch' to the developer is that these things usually aren't revokable -- once the city/town/etc starts work, the developer cannot cut-off the funding, even if the project is cancelled. A letter of credit definitely isn't a consumer financing vehicle. The closest equivalent is a \"\"line of credit\"\" tied to an asset like a home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc239a35be77409464db2aaa455acd86", "text": "You mentioned 15-20 years in your comment on mhoran_psprep's response. This is the most important factor to consider in the points vs. rate question. With a horizon that long it sounds like the points are probably a better option for you. There is a neat comparison tool at The Mortgage Professor's website that may help you build your spreadsheet or simply check the numbers you are getting.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3b5300c8ffa3ace3ae49d6d1404e6652", "text": "\"A re-financing, or re-fi, is when a debtor takes out a new loan for the express purpose of paying off an old one. This can be done for several reasons; usually the primary reason is that the terms of the new loan will result in a lower monthly payment. Debt consolidation (taking out one big loan at a relatively low interest rate to pay off the smaller, higher-interest loans that rack up, like credit card debt, medical bills, etc) is a form of refinancing, but you most commonly hear the term when referring to refinancing a home mortgage, as in your example. To answer your questions, most of the money comes from a new bank. That bank understands up front that this is a re-fi and not \"\"new debt\"\"; the homeowner isn't asking for any additional money, but instead the money they get will pay off outstanding debt. Therefore, the net amount of outstanding debt remains roughly equal. Even then, a re-fi can be difficult for a homeowner to get (at least on terms he'd be willing to take). First off, if the homeowner owes more than the home's worth, a re-fi may not cover the full principal of the existing loan. The bank may reject the homeowner outright as not creditworthy (a new house is a HUGE ding on your credit score, trust me), or the market and the homeowner's credit may prevent the bank offering loan terms that are worth it to the homeowner. The homeowner must often pony up cash up front for the closing costs of this new mortgage, which is money the homeowner hopes to recoup in reduced interest; however, the homeowner may not recover all the closing costs for many years, or ever. To answer the question of why a bank would do this, there are several reasons: The bank offering the re-fi is usually not the bank getting payments for the current mortgage. This new bank wants to take your business away from your current bank, and receive the substantial amount of interest involved over the remaining life of the loan. If you've ever seen a mortgage summary statement, the interest paid over the life of a 30-year loan can easily equal the principal, and often it's more like twice or three times the original amount borrowed. That's attractive to rival banks. It's in your current bank's best interest to try to keep your business if they know you are shopping for a re-fi, even if that means offering you better terms on your existing loan. Often, the bank is itself \"\"on the hook\"\" to its own investors for the money they lent you, and if you pay off early without any penalty, they no longer have your interest payments to cover their own, and they usually can't pay off early (bonds, which are shares of corporate debt, don't really work that way). The better option is to keep those scheduled payments coming to them, even if they lose a little off the top. Often if a homeowner is working with their current bank for a lower payment, no new loan is created, but the terms of the current loan are renegotiated; this is called a \"\"loan modification\"\" (especially when the Government is requiring the bank to sit down at the bargaining table), or in some cases a \"\"streamlining\"\" (if the bank and borrower are meeting in more amicable circumstances without the Government forcing either one to be there). Historically, the idea of giving a homeowner a break on their contractual obligations would be comical to the bank. In recent times, though, the threat of foreclosure (the bank's primary weapon) doesn't have the same teeth it used to; someone facing 30 years of budget-busting payments, on a house that will never again be worth what he paid for it, would look at foreclosure and even bankruptcy as the better option, as it's theoretically all over and done with in only 7-10 years. With the Government having a vested interest in keeping people in their homes, making whatever payments they can, to keep some measure of confidence in the entire financial system, loan modifications have become much more common, and the banks are usually amicable as they've found very quickly that they're not getting anywhere near the purchase price for these \"\"toxic assets\"\". Sometimes, a re-fi actually results in a higher APR, but it's still a better deal for the homeowner because the loan doesn't have other associated costs lumped in, such as mortgage insurance (money the guarantor wants in return for underwriting the loan, which is in turn required by the FDIC to protect the bank in case you default). The homeowner pays less, the bank gets more, everyone's happy (including the guarantor; they don't really want to be underwriting a loan that requires PMI in the first place as it's a significant risk). The U.S. Government is spending a lot of money and putting a lot of pressure on FDIC-insured institutions (including virtually all mortgage lenders) to cut the average Joe a break. Banks get tax breaks when they do loan modifications. The Fed's buying at-risk bond packages backed by distressed mortgages, and where the homeowner hasn't walked away completely they're negotiating mortgage mods directly. All of this can result in the homeowner facing a lienholder that is willing to work with them, if they've held up their end of the contract to date.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2afadb028d4d5d23a772479a3d008b2", "text": "\"You owe $20,000 to a loanshark, 1% per week interest. I'm happy to get 1% per month, and trust you to pay it back, so I lend you the $20,000. The first lender got his money, and now you are paying less interest as you pay the loan back. This is how a refi works, only the first bank won't try to break the legs of the second bank for moving into their business. This line \"\"reinvested the money into the mortgage to lower his monthly payments\"\" implies he also paid it down a bit, maybr the new mortgage is less principal than the one before.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c6d605796936481b77a643b78bc2d2c", "text": "Since there was no sale, where does the money actually come from? From the refinancing bank. It's a new loan. How does a bank profit from this, i.e. why would they willingly help someone lower their mortgage payments? Because they sell a new loan. Big banks usually sell the mortgage loans to the institutional investors and only service them. So by creating a new loan - they create another product they can sell. The one they previously sold already brought them profits, and they don't care about it. The investors won't get the interest they could have gotten had the loan been held the whole term, but they spread the investments so that each refi doesn't affect them significantly. Credit unions usually don't sell their mortgages, but they actually do have the interest to help you reduce your payments - you're their shareholder. In any case, the bank that doesn't sell the mortgages can continue making profits, because with the money released (the paid-off loan) they can service another borrower.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2b799dd2dc698724265b86b3950714e8", "text": "The Avant-Garde experts from mortgage refinancing Delaware will contrive one to one conversation between the mortgage planning expert and customer. Furthermore, dedicated educational workshops and conferences are also designed. Not only has that but, proficient do use their expert knowledge to arm the customers about the credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "846537821605424c23c1a405fb5d6476", "text": "The reason is the same as with cell phones payment plans. As competition grows cell phone companies offer better payment plans for the same price or the same plans for lower price or both so that you stay with that cell operator. Banks also make better offers if the financial situation allows. Suppose several banks offer refinancing with better terms but prohibit refinancing loans from the same bank. Okay, you refinance from another bank and them maybe refinance the new loan again from the original bank - it's a new loan after the first refinance and prohibition no longer works. They just make you jump through more loops and it doesn't make sense neither for them nor for you", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2e8aa4caff5531411d25c10c83ca508", "text": "Basically isn't this like if they loaned a bank 400b with 401b due tomorrow, and then the bank took the same loan the next day? Gross exaggeration I know, but I just want to make sure that is the way this works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9360d30fe1116cbfbd238ffdb702853f", "text": "\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ab90eea050860a8a0fd05acc26713a6", "text": "\"To understand the Twist, you need to understand what the Yield Curve is. You must also understand that the price of debt is inverse to the interest rate. So when the price of bonds (or notes or bills) rises, that means the current price goes up, and the yield to maturity has gone down. Currently (Early 2012) the short term rate is low, close to zero. The tools the fed uses, setting short term rates for one, is exhausted, as their current target is basically zero for this debt. But, my mortgage is based on 10yr rates, not 1 yr, or 30 day money. The next step in the fed's effort is to try to pull longer term rates down. By buying back 10 year notes in this quantity, the fed impacts the yield at that point on the curve. Buying (remember supply/demand) pushes the price up, and for debt, a higher price equates to lower yield. To raise the money to do this, they will sell short term debt. These two transactions effectively try to \"\"twist\"\" the curve to pull long term rates lower and push the economy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "580a99928ac197a0f28d77e7f3786d50", "text": "That's why they're taking the deal. But it's not like they completely stole all that money. I don't have any stats, but I'd assume most of those people who got their loans are still in their homes. (Sorry, I could be way off. Please correct) But they still are bastards for not letting me refinance. Could have just been because they saw this penalty coming.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f225d65a2aee4618d33e468bb0ff6024", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6702878eced62b5b1a1c2ff83ce6aba8", "text": "\"You seem to think that you are mostly paying interest in the first year because of the length of the loan period. This is skipping a step. You are mostly paying interest in the first year because your principle (the amount you owe) is highest in the first year. You do pay down some principle in that first year; this reduces the principle in the second year, which in turn reduces the interest owed. Your payments stay the same; so the amount you pay to principle goes up in that second year. This continues year after year, and eventually you owe almost no interest, but are making the same payments, so almost all of your payment goes to principle. It is a bit like \"\"compounded interest\"\", but it is \"\"compounded principle reduction\"\"; reducing your principle increases the rate you reduce it. As you didn't reduce your principle until the 16th year, this has zero impact on the interest you owed in the first 15 years. Now, for actual explicit numbers. You owe 100,000$ at 3% interest. You are paying your mortgage annually (keeps it simpler) and pay 5000$ per year. The first year you put 3000$ against interest and 2000$ against principle. By year 30, you put 145$ against interest and 4855$ against principle. because your principle was tiny, your interest was tiny.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f398ad2294afdfaf8c2e0f39a65b251", "text": "The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef7053fffebc96b8ba633d6201f49f4d", "text": "Before we were married my wife financed a car at a terrible rate. I think it was around 20%. When trying to refinance it the remaining loan was much larger than the value of the car, so no one was interested in refinancing. I was able to do a balance transfer to a credit card around 10%. This did take on a bit of risk, which almost came up when the car was totaled in an accident. Fortunately the remaining balance was now less than the value of the car, otherwise I would have been stuck with a credit card payment and no vehicle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac", "text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d49fecd9c88546d2b3fd701e7d5f498", "text": "\"Short answer: It depends :) It should generally be cheaper to get a loan directly from a bank, but often a mortgage broker can find you deals that you might not be able to get with a local bank. If you are refinancing, the cheapest option of all is usually to go through the bank that holds your existing mortgage. As for how mortgage brokers make their money, there are two ways. The first is on the \"\"front end\"\" through fees (origination fees especially) that go directly to them. The second and less obvious is on the \"\"back end\"\". This is where they make money by giving you a loan at a slightly higher rate than the lender was willing to give you. So, let's say they find a lender that will give you a loan at 5.25%. They offer that loan to you at 5.5% and pocket the extra .25% when the bank takes it over.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31d9b98a4891e6facb0202448d55049", "text": "\"New car loans, used car loans, and refinances have different rates because they have different risks associated with them, different levels of ability to recoup losses if there is a default, and different customer profiles. (I'm assuming third party lender for all of these questions, not financing the dealer arranges, as that has other considerations built into it.) A new car loan is both safer to some extent (as the car is a \"\"known\"\" risk, having no risk of damage/etc. prior to purchase), but also harder to recoup losses (because new cars immediately devalue significantly, while used cars keep more of their value). Thus the APRs are a little different; in general for the same amount a new car will be a bit lower APR, but of course used car loans are typically lower amounts. Refinance is also different; customer profile wise, the customer who is refinancing in these times is likely someone who is a higher risk (as why are they asking for a loan when they're mostly paid off their car?). Otherwise it's fairly similar to a used car, though probably a bit newer than the average used car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5d854e67e9fba192599f0a95bde7d7e", "text": "It's so that your total mortgage payment stays the same every month. Obviously, the interest due each month decreases over time, as part of the principal is paid off each month, and so if the proportion of interest and principal repayments were to stay the same then your first payment would be very large and your last payment would be almost nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0c3d25d1fe8e8f3be0bb9695ace06f9", "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?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8adc7d4160959f688ae4e377b73b715", "text": "In the case of reward cards, different cards may offer different rewards for different kind of purchases. For example, in the UK, one of the Amex cards offers 1.25% cashback on all purchases, whereas one of the Santander cards offers 3% on fuel, 2% or 1% on certain other transactions, and nothing on others. Of course, you then have to remember to use the right card! Another reason is that a person may use a card for a while, build up a good credit limit, and then move to a different card (perhaps because it has better rewards, or a lower interest rate, etc) without cancelling the first. If it costs nothing to keep the first card, then it can be useful to have it as a spare.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d546b6e4bd4a4a825ca9009cdc7b12a", "text": "Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6", "text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39f6c48c7af1810a0a19a134191176db", "text": "I have a fair number of cards floating around some reasons I have opened multiple accounts. I am not saying that it is for everyone but there are valid scenarios where multiple credit cards can make sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba1e15889ae2cea42d3c1ef7f74f9ef1", "text": "Many reasons mentioned already. The reason why I have multiple is missing: I have a personal card for my private use and a company card for company use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9b63ee6b91966273d3a16a44f838842", "text": "Another good reason: if you have to replace a card due to damage, loss, or identity theft it's nice to have a backup you can use until the new card for your primary account arrives. I know folks who use a secondary card for online purchases specifically so they can kill it if necessary without impacting their other uses, online arguably being at more risk. If there's no yearly fee, and if you're already paying the bill in full every month, a second card/account is mostly harmless. If you have trouble restraining yourself with one card, a second could be dangerous.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cea1ffc018113668b1aa2a79dde9f86", "text": "\"3 reasons I can think of: I once worked for a bank and when credit scoring for loans, if you had been approved by different institutions, you were given a better score. So if you held a Visa and Mastercard (as opposed to two Visa cards) your credit score would go higher. More than 6 cards though looked suspicious and your score would take a big hit. Having more than card has helped me when getting special offers multiple times from some websites where it was limited to \"\"one per customer\"\" though most just used your address or email account. If you owed $1000 in total which you can't pay off in one go, it is better to have that split across two cards. You would be paying interest on $500 on each card but when you have one card paid off, the interest you would be paying on the other would be based on the original debt to that one card of $500 (not $1000). I hope that makes sense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bfbeea865a7de3a370c39b733d0c35e", "text": "1- To max out rewards. I have 5 different credit cards, one gives me 5% back on gas, another on groceries, another on Amazon, another at restaurants and another 2% on everything else. If I had only one card, I would be missing out on a lot of rewards. Of course, you have to remember to use the right card for the right purchase. 2- To increase your credit limit. One card can give you a credit limit of $5,000, but if you have 4 of them with the same limits, you have increased your purchasing power to $20,000. This helps improve your credit score. Of course, it's never a good idea to owe $20,000 in credit card debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cf1cad1101d3b58fb25117237555f98", "text": "I keep one card just for monthly bills (power company,car loan, etc.). This one is unlikely to get hacked so I won't have to go change the credit card information on my monthly bills. I pay the credit card from my bank account. I just don't want a lot of businesses with direct access to my bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29fd9a7b163c501ded970e454c7f5aed", "text": "Someone mentioned sign up bonuses but only mentioned dollar values. You might get points, sweet, sweet airline points :) which some might find compelling enough to churn cards so they always have a few open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "278dfae26b43adafbd6cf6655c324295", "text": "I got a Capital One credit card because they don't charge a fee for transactions in foreign currencies. So I only use it when I travel abroad. At home, I use 3 different credit cards, each offering different types of rewards (cash back on gas, movies, restaurants, online shopping etc).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "248a67266daf806c6b4ac027188129d7", "text": "There is almost no reason to get a second credit card - this is a very good arrangement for your creditor but not for you. Credit cards have high rates of interest which you have to pay unless you pay the credit off every month. Therefore, increasing your total credit capacity should not be your concern. Since internet technology lets you pay off your balance in minutes online, there is no reason to have multiple cards in order to avoid running out of a balance. If, on the other hand, you do not pay your existing card off every month, than getting another card can be even more dangerous, since you're increasing the amount of debt you take on. I'd say at most it would make sense for you to grab a basic VISA, since most places do not accept AMEX. I would also considering cancelling the AMEX if you get the VISA, for reasons above.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ec99e72389a56d364362c3107958891b", "text": "My recommendation is to not ask for a credit increase, but just increase the utilization of one card if you have multiple cards, and decrease the utilization of the others, and continue paying off all cards in full each month. In a few months, you will likely be offered a credit increase by the card that is getting increased use. The card company that is getting the extra business knows that you are paying off big bills each month and keeping your account in good standing, and they will likely offer you a credit increase all by themselves because they want to keep your business. If no offer is forthcoming, you can call the card company and ask for a credit increase. If they refuse, tell them that you will be charging very little on the card in the future (or even canceling your card, though that will cause a hit on your credit score) because of their refusal, and switch your high volume to a different card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fc083d123368ec99df5ecda0132fdf5", "text": "If you are planning to get new cards, it is probably best to open the accounts as soon as possible to start establishing a history of good credit use. You might also wish to open multiple accounts so that future lines will have less of an impact on your average age of open credit lines. Since you will probably have higher interest rates it is also advisable never to carry a balance on any of your newly acquired cards. This will prevent a recurrence of the problems you are now trying to recover from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87d965cd8c97f1faa8784ca29206e209", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f7466bc890563ee9345c8834bfb181", "text": "Also, unless I missed it and someone already mentioned it, do keep in mind the impact of these credit cards balances on your credit score. Over roughly 75% usage on a given credit account reflects badly on your score and has a pretty large impact on how your worthiness is calculated. It gives the impression that you are a person that lives month to month on cards, etc. If you could get both cards down to reasonable balances to where you could begin paying on them regularly and work them down over time, that will not only look incredible for your credit report but also immediately begin making your credit worthiness begin to raise due to the fact that you will not have accounts that (I'm assuming here) are at very high usage (over 75% of your total limit.) If you have to get one card knocked out just to get breathing room, and you're boxed in here -- or honestly even if the mental stress is causing you incredible hardship day to day, then I suppose blow one card out of the water, reassess and start getting to work on that second card. I hope this helped, I'm no expert, but I have had every kind of luck with credit cards and accounts you could think of, so I can only give my experience from the rubber-meets-the-road perspective. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d1f5c390d2fc95f58a1fcc9cdf0566a", "text": "For those who are looking to improve credit for the sake of being able to obtain future credit on better terms, I think a rewards credit card is the best way to do that. I recommend that you only use as many cards as you need to gain the best rewards. I have one card that gives 6% back on grocery purchases, and I have another card that gives 4% back on [petrol] and 2% back on dining out. Both of those cards give only 1% back on all other purchases, so I use a third card that gives 1.5% back across the board for my other purchases. I pay all of the cards in full each month. If there was a card that didn't give me an advantage in making my purchases, I wouldn't own it. I'm generally frugal, so I know that there is no psychological disadvantage to paying with a card. You have to consider your own spending discipline when deciding whether paying with cards is an advantage for you. In the end, you should only use debt when you can pay low interest rates (or as in the case of the cards above, no interest at all). In the case of the low interest debt, it should be allowing you to make an investment that will pay you more by having it sooner than the cost of interest. You might need a car to get to work, but you probably don't need a new car. Borrow as little as you can and repay your loans as quickly as you can. Debt can be a tool for your advantage, but only if used wisely. Don't be lured in by the temptation of something new and shiny now that you can pay for later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb8152e2f225941fdaf15f1f09e1f37d", "text": "I'm not sure if you are including the use of credit cards in the intent of your quesiton. However, I will give you some good reasons I use them even when I can pay cash: 1) I get an interest free loan for almost 30 days as long as I don't carry balances. 2) I get a statement detailing where I am spending my money that is helpful for budgeting. I'd never keep track to this level of detail if I were using cash. 3) Many cards offer reward programs that can be used for cash back. 4) It helps maintain my credit rating for those times I NEED to buy something and pay it off over time (car, house, etc.) 5) Not so much an issue for me personally, but for people that live paycheck to paycheck, it might help to time your cash outflows to match up with your inflows. For a business, I think it is mostly a cash flow issue. That is, in a lot of B2B type businesses customers can pay very slowly (managing their own cash flows). So your revenue can sometimes lag quite a bit behind the expenses that were associated with them (e.g payroll). A business line of credit can smooth out the cash flow, especially for companies that don't have a lot of cash reserves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19db7d1ea4440024576bf59019233a4a", "text": "Debit cards do not earn the bank any interest from you whereas credit cards do, so they want to give incentive to use credit over debit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfdd43e6bb109477b2927f5a78aa9c38", "text": "\"The following is based on my Experian credit scoring feedback and experience here in the UK over many years. (And for further information I currently hold a credit score of 999, the highest possible, with 6 credit cards.) Now I'm assuming that while there may be some differences in particulars in your case due to the difference in locality nevertheless the below should hopefully provide some broad guidelines and reasonable conclusion in your situation: Having a large number of active credit accounts may be seen as a negative. However having a large number of settled accounts should on the contrary have a positive effect on your score. As you keep your accounts mostly settled, I think having another card will not be to your detriment and should in time be beneficial. A large total credit balance outstanding may count against you. (But see the next point.) Having your total outstanding debt on all credit accounts be a smaller proportion of your total available credit, counts in your favour. This means having more cards for the same amount of credit in use, is net-net in your favour. It also has the effect of making even larger outstanding credit balances (as in point 2) to be a lower percentage of your total available credit, and consequently will indicate lower risk to lenders. It appears from my experience the higher the highest credit limit on a single card you are issued (and are managing responsibly e.g. either paid off or used responsibly) the better. Needless to say, any late payments count against you. The best thing to do then is to set up a direct debit for the minimum amount to be paid like clockwork every month. Lenders really like consistent payers. :) New credit accounts initially will count against you for a while. But as the accounts age and are managed responsibly or settled they will eventually count in your favour and increase your score. Making many credit applications in a short space of time may count against you as you may be seen to be credit reliant. Conclusion: On balance I would say get the other card. Your credit score might be slightly lower for a couple of months but eventually it will be to your benefit as per the above. Having another card also means more flexibility and more more options if you do end up with a credit balance that you want to finance and pay off over a period as cheaply as possible. In the UK the credit card companies are falling over themselves trying to offer one \"\"interest free\"\" or 0% \"\"balance transfer\"\" offers. Of course they're not truly 0% since you typically have to pay a \"\"transfer fee\"\" of a couple of percent. Still, this can be quite cheap credit, much much cheaper than the headline APR rates actually associated with the cards. The catch is that any additional spending on such cards are paid off first (and attract interest at the normal rate until paid off). Usually also if you miss a payment the interest rate reverts to the normal rate. But these pitfalls are easily avoided (pay by direct debit and don't use card you've got a special deal on for day to day expenses.) So, having more cards available is then very useful because you then have choice. You can roll expensive debts to the cheapest lender at your disposal for as long as they'll offer, and then simply not use that card for any purchases (while paying off the balance as cheaply as possible), meanwhile using another card for day to day expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed05f68ca768bf237e64f58839e2da2", "text": "You have 3 assumptions about the use of credit cards for all your purchases: 1) May be a moot point. At current interest rates that will not make much of a difference. If somebody links their card to a checking account that doesn't pay any interest there will be no additional interest earned. If the rate on their account is <1% they may make a couple of dollars a month. 2) Make sure that the card delivers on the benefits you expect. Don't select a card with an annual fee. Cash is better than miles for most people. Also make sure the best earnings aren't from only shopping at one gas station or one store. You might not make as much as you expect. Especially if the gas station is generally the most expensive in the area. Sometimes the maximum cash back is only for a limited time, or only after you have charged thousands of dollars that year. 3) It can have a positive impact on your credit rating. I have also found that the use of the credit card does minimize the chances of accidentally overdrawing the linked account. There is only one big scheduled withdraw a month, instead of dozens of unscheduled ones. There is some evidence that by disconnecting the drop in balance from the purchase, people spend more. They say I am getting X% back, but then are shocked when they see the monthly bill.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e88c6e1c6c8ea228540df3db741c995", "text": "\"You ask about the difference between credit and debit, but that may be because you're missing something important. Regardless of credit/debit, there is value in carrying two different cards associated with two different accounts. The reason is simply that because of loss, fraud, or your own mismanagement, or even the bank's technical error, any card can become unusable for some period of time. Exactly how long depends what happened, but just sending you a new card can easily take more than one business day, which might well be longer than you'd like to go without access to any funds. In that situation you would be glad of a credit card, and you would equally be glad of a second debit card on a separate account. So if your question is \"\"I have one bank account with one debit card, and the only options I'm willing to contemplate are (a) do nothing or (b) take a credit card as well\"\", then the answer is yes, take a credit card as well, regardless of the pros or cons of credit vs debit. Even if you only use the credit card in the event that you drop your debit card down a drain. So what you can now consider is the pros and cons of a credit card vs managing an additional bank account -- unless you seriously hate one or more of the cons of credit cards, the credit card is likely to win. My bank has given me a debit card on a cash savings account, which is a little scary, but would cover most emergencies if I didn't have a credit card too. Of course the interest rate is rubbish and I sometimes empty my savings account into a better investment, so I don't use it as backup, but I could. Your final question \"\"can a merchant know if I give him number of debit or credit card\"\" is already asked: Can merchants tell the difference between a credit card and embossed debit card? Yes they can, and yes there are a few things you can't (or might prefer not to) do with debit. The same could even be said of Visa vs. Mastercard, leading to the conclusion that if you have a Visa debit you should look for a Mastercard credit. But that seems to be less of an issue as time goes on and almost everywhere in Europe apparently takes both or neither. If you travel a lot outside the EU then you might want to be loaded down with every card under the sun, and three different kinds of cash, but you'd already know that without asking ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e68db5c2c9a5586f8320886ebec6055e", "text": "Another thing to factor in are deals provided by banks. In general, banks care about new customers more than their existing customers. Hence they explicitly restrict the best deals on credit cards, savings accounts, etc, to new customers only. (Of course, there are occasionally good deals for existing customers, and some banks choose not to discriminate.) If you have many different bank accounts, you are making yourself unavailable for switching bonuses and introductory rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10fb3876dfd56ac3b8ae39c4aaf46346", "text": "Do you need it? It doesn't sound like it - you seem to be able to manage with just the cards you have. Will it hurt anything? Probably not either, unless it entices you to spend more than you make. Another downside might be that you would spend more than you normally would just to have activity on every card. So all in all, I don't see much upside.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78ed499616a995e2d3a5153515793822", "text": "pay off one of the cards completely. there are several reasons why:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7f69a4ac2f6301ad1db8d23d13323d7", "text": "Deposit it in a business savings account. The following below show you some options you can choose from. Next you can invest it in the market i.e. shares, bonds etc. If you have a more risky side, can go for peer to peer lending. If you are feeling really lucky and want to invest in the long term, then buy a property as a buy-to-let landlord. There are loads of options, you only need to explore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b39d160f01e3caff393cd459215bf0a", "text": "Under what conditions did you move? My favourite method of judging prices objectively comes from concepts written in Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez. Essentially it normalizes money spent by making you figure out how much an item costs with respect to the number of hours you needed to work to afford it. I prefer that method versus comparing with others since it is objective for yourself and looks beyond just the bare prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6b0f1f9f15d0cd893ee255ff1d5b8e9f", "text": "How long you need to keep tax records will depend on jurisdiction. In general, if you discard records in a period of time less than your tax authority recommends, it may create audit problems down the road. ie: if you make a deduction supported by business expense receipts, and you discard those receipts next year, then you won't be able to defend the deduction if your tax authority audits you in 3 years. Generally, how long you keep records would depend on: (a) how much time your tax authority has to audit you; and (b) how long after you file your return you are allowed to make your own amendments. In your case (US-based), the IRS has straight-forward documentation about how long it expects you to keep records: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/how-long-should-i-keep-records Period of Limitations that apply to income tax returns Keep records for 3 years if situations (4), (5), and (6) below do not apply to you. Keep records for 3 years from the date you filed your original return or 2 years from the date you paid the tax, whichever is later, if you file a claim for credit or refund after you file your return. Keep records for 7 years if you file a claim for a loss from worthless securities or bad debt deduction. Keep records for 6 years if you do not report income that you should report, and it is more than 25% of the gross income shown on your return. Keep records indefinitely if you do not file a return. Keep records indefinitely if you file a fraudulent return. Keep employment tax records for at least 4 years after the date that the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever is later. Note that the above are the minimum periods to keep records; for your own purposes you may want to keep them for longer periods than that. For example, you may be in a position to discover that you would like to refile a prior tax return, because you forgot to claim a tax credit that was available to you. If you would have been eligible to refile in that period but no longer have documentation, you are out of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ecd6e0d6e53174eb4327a0d37e38bde", "text": "Unfortunately, my taxes tend to be complicated This. In and of itself, is a greater reason to keep the documents. The other answer offered a good summary, but keep in mind, if the IRS decides you fraudulently withheld claiming income, they can go back 7 years. I bought a rental property in 1987, and sold it in 2016. In that case, keeping the returns seemed the right thing to do to have the paper trail for basis, else I could claim anything, and hope for the best. I have all my tax returns since my first tax return, 1980. It's one drawer of a file cabinet. Not too great a burden.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bf7662a065b8944e12c197ad5175fda5", "text": "\"A few practical thoughts: A practical thing that helps me immensely not to loose important paperwork (such as bank statements, bills, payroll statement, all those statements you need for filing tax return, ...) is: In addition to the folder (Aktenordner) where the statements ultimately need to go I use a Hängeregistratur. There are also standing instead of hanging varieties of the same idea (may be less expensive if you buy them new - I got most of mine used): you have easy-to-add-to folders where you can just throw in e.g. the bank statement when it arrives. This way I give the statement a preliminary scan for anything that is obviously grossly wrong and throw it into the respective folder (Hängetasche). Every once in a while I take care of all my book-keeping, punch the statements, file them in the Aktenordner and enter them into the software. I used to hate and never do the filing when I tried to use Aktenordner only. I recently learned that it is well known that Aktenordner and Schnellhefter are very time consuming if you have paperwork arriving one sheet at a time. I've tried different accounting software (being somewhat on the nerdy side, I use gnucash), including some phone apps. Personally, I didn't like the phone apps I tried - IMHO it takes too much time to enter things, so I tend to forget it. I'm much better at asking for a sales receipt (Kassenzettel) everywhere and sticking them into a calendar at home (I also note cash payments for which I don't have a receipt as far as I recall them - the forgotten ones = difference ends up in category \"\"hobby\"\" as they are mostly the beer or coke after sports). I was also to impatient for the cloud/online solutions I tried (I use one for business, as there the archiving is guaranteed to be according to the legal requirements - but it really takes far more time than entering the records in gnucash).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "424791cb4ca491c8cee40a0ab6b52f40", "text": "Just like with IRS refunds issued in errors, after 3 years it's legally yours, they can't go after you anymore. So savings account until then or just mail them a check if that is what your conscious is saying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c980bab86b11f8a11a08b697e3987cf5", "text": "The I-9 form is required because you are working. It is kept by the employer as proof that you have the proper documents to work. If the government was to inspect their records they can be fined if they don't have those document, in fact they have to keep them for several years after your employment is done. A w-4 form is a federal tax form. There also was probably a state version of the form. When you completed the w-4 it is used by your employer to determine how much in taxes need to be withheld. Employers don't know your tax situation. Even though you are on work study, you still could have made enough money over the summer to pay taxes. But if this is your only job, and you will not make enough money to have to pay taxes, you can fill out the form as exempt. That means that last year you didn't make enough money to have to pay taxes, and you don't expect to make enough to have to pay taxes this year. If you are exempt, no federal income tax will be withheld. They might still withhold for social security and medicare. The state w-4 can also be used to be exempt from state taxes. If they withhold any income taxes you have to file one of the 1040 tax forms to get that income tax money back. You will have to do so for the state income tax withholding. A note about social security and medicare. If you have an on campus job, at the campus you attend, during the school year; they don't withhold money for social security and medicare. That law applies to students on work study jobs, and on non-work-study jobs. for single dependents the federal threshold where you must file is: > You must file a return if any of the following apply. Your gross income was more than the larger of— a. $1,000, or b. Your earned income (up to $5,850) plus $350.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394ed244fd3cbe28d8540aeaaa6914e9", "text": "If you were NRI during the period you earned the income, its tax free in India and you can bring it back anytime within 7 years. There is a limit on total amount but its quite huge. If you were not an NRI during that period [when you earned in US] then whatever you have earned is taxable even in India, it does not matter whether you keep the funds in US or bring it back to India. You get the benefit of Double Tax and can deduct the tax already paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e55daa3355f5efdf6e80a5c3081f2a87", "text": "I've found it's just simpler to keep all of my receipts rather than debate which receipts to keep and which to throw away. I shove all my receipts from August in an envelope labeled August. Then, next year (12 months later) I shred the envelope. That way, if I see a bank error, need to find a receipt to do a return or warranty work, etc. I have all of them available for a year. Doing 1 envelope per month means I only have 12 envelopes at any time and I can shred an entire envelope without bothering to sort through receipts inside the envelope.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6c958f80703d863eece8776a95b0b4a", "text": "I don't like keeping my tax information online. Personally, I buy TaxCut from Amazon for $25-30. I store my info securely on resources under my control. Call me a luddite or a weirdo, but I also file using paper, because I don't see the advantage of paying for the privilege of saving the government time and money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7925c388a4ae383d3f58c8a67ecb5e9", "text": "Maybe it's just because of the foundation date. If I start a company on August 1st, I would like its FY starts on that date too, in order to track my first whole year. Would be quite useless to finish my year on December, after just five months. I want to have data of my first year after a twelve months activity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b693d1e182c3ed28bb173f8f81004e15", "text": "\"There are probably many correct answers to this question, but for most people, the main reason is qualified dividends. To be a qualified dividend (and therefore eligible for lower tax rates), the dividend-paying stock or fund must be held for \"\"more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date\"\". Since many stocks and funds pay out dividends at the end of the year, that means it takes until mid- to late February to determine if you held them, and therefore made the dividend qualified. Brokerages don't want to send out 1099s in January and then possibly have to send out revised versions if you decide to sell something that paid a dividend in December that otherwise would have been qualified.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "034e29cd4e755643f5e95ac6daae8337", "text": "I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bd407c65ebee10970a1a0a65835fcd0", "text": "If you live in a country that taxes interest, and if this is a significant amount of money in a high interest account then the tax forms will serve as a reminder. Even though the advice is to forget about the money, so that you don't dip into it for trivial things; you do need to look at it every so often to make sure it is still in a high interest account. The info about the account also needs to be kept in a place where somebody else can track it down if a spouse or dependent has to use the money in the emergency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15718d45c58e87edb9c4696bed4f7991", "text": "\"Rob - I'm sorry your first visit here has been unpleasant. What you are asking for is beyond the capability of most software. If you look at Fairmark.com, you find the standard deduction for married filing joint is $12,200 in 2012, and $12,400 in 2013. I offer this anecdote to share a 'deduction' story - The first year I did my MIL's taxes, I had to explain that she didn't have enough deductions to itemize. Every year since, she hands me a file full of paper substantiating medical deductions that don't exceed 7.5% of her income. In turn, I give her two folders back, one with the 5 or so documents I needed, and the rest labeled \"\"trash\"\". Fewer than 30% of filers itemize. And a good portion of those that do, have no question that's the right thing to do. e.g. my property tax is more than the $12K, so anything else I have that's a deduction adds right to the number. It's really just those people who are at the edge that are likely frustrated. I wrote an article regarding Standard Deduction vs Itemizing, in which I describe a method of pulling in one's deductible expenses into Odd years, reducing the number in Even years, to allow a bi-annual itemization. If this is your situation, you'll find the concept interesting. You also ask about filing status. Think on this for a minute. After pulling in our W2s (TurboTax imports the data right from ADP), I do the same for our stock info. The stock info, and all Schedule A deductions aren't assigned a name. So any effort to split them in search of savings by using Married Filing Separate, would first require splitting these up. TurboTax has a 'what-if' worksheet for this function, but when the 'marriage penalty' was lifted years ago, the change in status had no value. Items that phaseout over certain income levels are often lost to the separate filer anyway. When I got married, I found my real estate losses each year could not be taken, they accumulated until I either sold, or until our income dropped when the Mrs retired. So, while is respect your desire for these magic dials within the software, I think it's fair to say they would provide little value to most people. If this thread stays open, I'd be curious if anyone can cite an example where filing separately actually benefits the couple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69b86f3654b9194f188b80eabf2295ae", "text": "For purposes of the EIN the address is largely inconsequential. The IRS cannot (read: won't) recover the EIN if you fail to write it down after the website generates it for you. On your actual tax form the address is more consequential, and this is more so a question of consistency than anything. But an entity can purchase property anywhere and have a different address subsequent years. Paying the actual taxes means more than the semantical inconsistencies. The whole purpose of separate accounts is to make an audit easier, so even if someone imagines that some action (such as address ambiguity) automatically triggers an audit, all your earnings/purchases are not intermingled with personal stuff, which just streamlines the audit process. Consequences (or lack thereof) aside, physical means where physical property is. So if you have an actual mailing address in your state, you should go with that. Obviously, this depends on what arrangement you have with your registered agent, if all addresses are in Wyoming then use the Wyoming address and let the Registered Agent forward all your mail to you. Don't forget your $50 annual report in Wyoming ;) How did you open a business paypal without an EIN? Business bank accounts? Hm... this is for liability purposes...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f87fe8e98e124dc629edf77abcd2f338", "text": "Considering your question, I have been in the market for a house to buy. There is a house that I like and I wanted to know if I could afford it. You state your Assets: Awesome! Current Income: Great job putting $1000/month into your 401k! That is $12,000/year saved for retirement. Excellent! Current expenses: Why do you want to buy a house for more than 4x your gross income, and 3x median house price (U.S.)? Are you planning on living in the house for at least 5-7 years? There is a risk that interest rates will rise, and that will affect your ability to sell the house. Expected expenses: Adding your other essentials, You are considering increasing your expenses by $1000-1200/month. Looking at the amounts you quoted for direct housing expenses, you will have committed $2600/month to a mortgage payment. Adding your other estimated essentials, you will spend over $3700/month (leaving $2200/month for everything else). You may have higher utilities for a house than an apartment, you are doing well with your food budget, and your cellphone is lower than many. You anticipate $650/month ($7800/year) tax savings (be careful, congress is looking for ways to increase tax revenue). You want to keep your essential expenses under 50% (much more than 50% is difficult, and I am trying to get to 40%). You may live in an area where housing costs are an out-sized expense. But an option would be to save more, and a larger down payment could lower the monthly expenses below that 50% mark.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "250a7730477a33972e154998d713b752", "text": "You're in the same situation I'm in (bought new house, didn't sell old house, now renting out old house). Assuming that everything is stable, right now I'd do something besides pay down your new mortgage. If you pay down the mortgage at your old house, that mortgage payment will go away faster than if you paid down the one on the new house. Then, things start to get fun. You then have a lot more free cash flow available to do whatever you like. I'd tend to do that before searching for other investments. Then, once you have the free cash flow, you can look for other investments (probably a wise risk) or retire the mortgage on your residence earlier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac", "text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ab5fbddc232cbe6f468ada3377e5260", "text": "A lot depends on whether your mortgage payments are interest only or 'repayment' and what the remaining term is on each of the mortgages. Either way I suspect that the best value for the money you put in will be had by making payments to the larger, newer mortgage. This is because the quicker you reduce the capital owed the less interest you will pay over the whole term of the mortgage and you've already had the older mortgage for sometime (unless you remortgaged) so the benefit you can get from an arbitrary reduction in the capital is inevitably less than you will get from the same reduction in the capital of the newer mortgage. Even if the two mortgages are the same age then the benefit of putting money into the one on the new house is greater due to the greater interest charged on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1ff2e2812a352997c7928a5cd5d9e34", "text": "Pay down the lower balance on the rental property. Generally speaking, you are more likely to need/want to sell the rental house as business conditions change or if you need the money for some other purpose. If you pay down your primary residence first, you are building equity, but that equity isn't as liquid as equity in the rental. Also, in the US, you cannot deduct the interest on a rental property, so the net interest after taxes that you're paying on the rental narrows the gap between the 4.35% loan and the 5% loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "763dca18472ae2314ce65c377eb644a0", "text": "One advantage of paying down your primary residence is that you can refinance it later for 10-15 years when the balance is low. Refinancing a rental is much harder and interest rates are often higher for investors. This also assumes that you can refinance for a lower rate in the nearest future. The question is really which would you rather sell if you suddenly need the money? I have rental properties and i'd rather move myself, than sell the investments (because they are income generating unlike my own home). So in your case i'd pay off primary residence especially since the interest is already higher on it (would be a harder decision if it was lower)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "28add8d067474fc049e881940e368e57", "text": "How is the current mortgage payment broken out? I have a mortgage on a rental property with a payment of $775, but $600 is principal. If I were at breakeven on a sale or a bit underwater, I'd be better off just holding still, the tenant paying the loan down over $7000/year. You question is a good one, but a good answer would require more details. A bank may not agree to a short sale on an investment property, especially since there's a second property to go after. I'm not making a judgement, just saying, it's not a slam-dunk to just short sell it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e37fc63b4815fe300399ed119c76dcb", "text": "Make sure to get a Homestead Exemption if your state has one. This can keep your taxes from rising quite as steeply, and in some cases the county assessment office can get you a retroactive refund when your application is approved. Also, if you really think you're paying too high based on home resale values around you, most county assessors will also let you dispute your valuation. A higher value is great if you intend to sell, not so good if you're staying long term. Kind of like the difference between trading bonds and investing in them. Also, as I think one of the other posters pointed out, you can usually make extra small payments and direct them to escrow or to principal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef88fda581b8247321f9fd356dccdaf7", "text": "With an annual income of $120,000 you can be approved for a $2800 monthly payment on your mortgage. The trickier problem is that you will save quite a bit on that mortgage payment if you can avoid PMI, which means that you should be targeting a 20% down-payment on your next purchase. With a $500,000 budget for a new home, that means you should put $100,000 down. You only have $75,000 saved, so you can either wait until you save another $25,000, or you can refinance your current property for $95k+ $25k = $120k which would give you about a $575 monthly payment (at 30 years at 4%) on your current property. Your new property should be a little over $1,900 per month if you finance $400,000 of it. Those figures do not include property tax or home owners insurance escrow payments. Are you prepared to have about $2,500 in mortgage payments should your renters stop paying or you can't find renters? Those numbers also do not include an emergency fund. You may want to wait even longer before making this move so that you can save enough to still have an emergency fund (worth 6 months of your new higher expenses including the higher mortgage payment on the new house.) I don't know enough about the rest of your expenses, but I think it's likely that if you're willing to borrow a little more refinancing your current place that you can probably make the numbers work to purchase a new home now. If I were you, I would not count on rental money when running the numbers to be sure it will work. I would probably also wait until I had saved $100,000 outright for the down-payment on the new place instead of refinancing the current place, but that's just a reflection of my more conservative approach to finances. You may have a larger appetite for risk, and that's fine, then rental income will probably help you pay down any money you borrow in the refinancing to make this all worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5a476e5354b28a79ba529d42d2dabdd", "text": "When I was a contractor I prioritize this way. 6 months salary nest egg while contributing to tax deferred retirement then after that you can pre pay your mortgage. Remember you can't skip a month even if you prepay. So once you pay that extra to your mortgage you lose that flexibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26d1fa0919c5d0cd9e23e44fd94ee05e", "text": "yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f700e0dd68358d02092e7bada926aa0d", "text": "\"Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. \"\"Safe as houses\"\" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca1a33a7f94d8ef59daa6de936c28c3", "text": "\"If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of \"\"passive\"\" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504db960177f3094e6a274c3880f6531", "text": "The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bf65001c063594bdc70a9d5a0562c5b", "text": "\"that would deprive me of the rental income from the property. Yes, but you'd gain by not paying the interest on your other mortgage. So your net loss (or gain) is the rental income minus the interest you're paying on your home. From a cash flow perspective, you'd gain the difference between the rental income and your total payment. Any excess proceeds from selling the flat and paying off the mortgage could be saved and use later to buy another rental for \"\"retirement income\"\". Or just invest in a retirement account and leave it alone. Selling the flat also gets rid of any extra time spent managing the property. If you keep the flat, you'll need a mortgage of 105K to 150K plus closing costs depending on the cost of the house you buy, so your mortgage payment will increase by 25%-100%. My fist choice would be to sell the flat and buy your new house debt-free (or with a very small mortgage). You're only making 6% on it, and your mortgage payment is going to be higher since you'll need to borrow about 160k if you want to keep the flat and buy a $450K house, so you're no longer cash-flow neutral. Then start saving like mad for a different rental property, or in non-real estate retirement investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7e69c4462182ca6b9aaf0ccf110ab1", "text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96bb905904cb63b7f21c3154fe64a705", "text": "You say My work is steady; even if I lost my job it'd be easy to get another. Location has been static for a few years now, but I'm not sure that'll extrapolate to the future; I'm lazy, so I don't want to move, but for a significantly better job opportunity I wouldn't mind. The general rule of thumb is that you'll come out ahead if you buy a house (with a mortgage) and live there for five years. What you lose in interest, you make up in rent. And living there for five years, you make back your closing costs in equity. If you're there less than five years though, you don't make back the closing costs. You'd have been better off renting. Historically (up to about twenty years ago), your mortgage payment and rent payment for the same basic property would be about the same. I.e. if your current landlord sold you what you are renting, your mortgage payment would be roughly the same as your rent. Maybe a little lower or a little higher but about the same. More recently, it hasn't been strange to see a divergence in those. Now it is not uncommon for a mortgage payment to be 50% higher than rent on the same property. This has some consequences. First, your $1000 rent probably won't stretch as far as a $1000 mortgage payment. So you'll be buying something that you'd only pay $650 or $700 rent. Second, if you move and can't sell immediately, you'll get less in rent than you'd pay in mortgage. Rather than contributing to your income, the property will require subsidy just to maintain the mortgage. And in the early years of the mortgage, this means that you're paying all of the principal (equity) and some of the interest. Buying a duplex makes this worse. You have your side and their side. You can substitute your $1000 rent for half of the mortgage payment. Meanwhile, they are paying $700 in rent. You have to subsidize the mortgage by $300. Plus, you are talking about hiring a property management company to do things like lawn maintenance. There goes another $100 a month. So you are subsidizing the mortgage by $400. I don't know real estate prices in Utah, but a quick search finds a median house price over $200,000. So it seems unlikely that you are buying new construction with new appliances. More likely you are buying an existing duplex with existing appliances. What happens when they fail? The renter doesn't pay for that. The property management company doesn't pay for that (although they'll likely arrange for it to happen). You pay for it. Also, it often takes a bit of time to clean up the apartment after one tenant leaves before the new tenant starts paying rent. That's a dead weight loss. If this happens during a local recession, you could be carrying the mortgage on a property with no offsetting rental income for months. There are some countervailing forces. For example, if house prices in your area are increasing, the rent will increase with them (not necessarily at the same pace). But your mortgage payment stays the same. So eventually the rent may catch up with the mortgage payment. If you wait long enough in a strong enough market, the rent on the other half of the duplex may cover the entire mortgage payment. If you currently have an urban apartment within walking distance of work and switch to a suburban apartment with a commute, you have a better chance of finding a duplex where the entire mortgage payment is only the $1000 that you pay in rent. Your half of the duplex won't be as nice as your apartment is, and you'll have a half hour or hour long commute every morning (and the same to get home in the evening). But on strictly fiscal terms you'll be doing about as well. Plus you have the income from the other half. So even if your mortgage payment is more than your rent payment, you can still break even if the rent covers it. Consider a $1400 mortgage and $400 in rent from the other half (after property management fees). So long as nothing goes wrong, you break even. Perhaps the agreement is that your parents take care of things going wrong (broken appliances, troublesome tenants, time between tenants). Or perhaps you drain your emergency fund and adjust your 401(k) payment down to the minimum when that happens. Once your emergency fund is replenished, restore the 401(k). If you're willing to live in what's essentially a $500 apartment, you can do better this way. Of course, you can also do better by living in a $500 apartment and banking the other $500 that you spend on rent. Plus you now have the expenses of a commute and five hours less free time a week. You describe yourself as essentially living paycheck to paycheck. You have adequate savings but no building excess. Whatever you get paid, you immediately turn around and spend. Your parents may view you as profligate. Your apartment is nicer than their early apartments were. You go out more often. You're not putting anything aside for later (except retirement). It didn't use to be at all strange for people to move out of the city because they needed more space. For the same rent they were paying in the city, they could buy a house in the suburbs. Then they'd build up equity. So long as they stayed in roughly the same work location, they didn't need to move until they were ready to upgrade their house. The duplex plan leads to one of two things. Either you sell the duplex and use the equity to buy a nicer regular house, or you move out of the duplex and rent your half. Now you have a rental property providing income. And if you saved enough for a down payment, you can still buy a regular house. From your parents' perspective, encouraging you to buy a duplex may be the equivalent of asking you to cut back on spending. Rather than reducing your 401(k) deposits, they may be envisioning you trading in your car for a cheaper one and trading in your nice but expensive apartment for something more reasonable in a cheaper neighborhood. Rather than working with a property management company, you'll be out doing yardwork rather than cavorting with your friends. And maybe the new place would have more space to share when you meet someone--you aren't going to provide many grandkids alone. If you get a mortgage on a duplex, you are responsible for paying the mortgage. You are responsible even if something happens to the house. For example, if a fire burns it down or a tornado takes it away. Or you just find that the house isn't solid enough to support that party where all of your friends are jumping up and down to the latest pop sensation. So beyond losing whatever you invest in the property, you may also lose what you borrowed. Now consider what happens if you invest the same amount of money in General Motors as in the house. Let's call that $10,000 and give the house a value of $200,000. With General Motors, even if they go bankrupt tomorrow, you're only out $10,000. With the house, you're out $200,000. Admittedly it's much hard to lose the entire $200,000 value of the house. But even if the house loses $80,000 in value, you are still $70,000 in the hole. You don't need a disaster for the house to lose $80,000 in value. That's pretty much what happened in the 2006-2010 period. People were losing all of what they invested in houses plus having to declare bankruptcy to get out of the excess debt. Of course, if they had been able to hold on until 2015 markets mostly recovered. But if you lost your job in 2008, they wouldn't let you not make mortgage payments until you got a new one in 2012. When you declare bankruptcy, you don't just lose the house. You also lose all your emergency savings and may lose some of your belongings. There are some pretty prosaic disasters too. For example, you and your tenant both go away for a weekend. It rains heavily and your roof starts to leak due to weak maintenance (so not covered by insurance). The house floods, destroying all the electronics and damaging various other things. Bad enough if it's just you, but you're also responsible for the tenant's belongings. They sue you for $20,000 and they move out. So no rent and big expenses. To get the house livable again is going to take $160,000. Plus you have a $190,000 mortgage on a property that is only worth about $40,000. That's at the extreme end.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4449c7883b32e00a325fda321ca845", "text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4647b65189f441f7930a360106a9f1bf", "text": "I would go with the 2nd option (put down as little as possible) with a small caveat: avoid the mortgage insurance if you can and put down 20%. Holding your rental property(ies)'s mortgage has some benefits: You can write off the mortgage interest. In Canada you cannot write off the mortgage interest from your primary residence. You can write off stuff renovations and new appliances. You can use this to your advantage if you have both a primary residence and a rental property. Get my drift? P.S. I do not think it's a good time right now to buy a property and rent it out simply because the housing prices are over-priced. The rate of return of your investment is too low. P.S.2. I get the feeling from your question that you would like to purchase several properties in the long-term future. I would like to say that the key to good and low risk investing is diversification. Don't put all of your money into one basket. This includes real estate. Like any other investment, real estate goes down too. In the last 50 or so years real estate has only apprepriated around 2.5% per year. While, real estate is a good long term investment, don't make it 80% of your investment portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfa0272d5b3a2671dfda9ee449eee319", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e315fc91c8c4152825de79bf564a253f", "text": "I will preface saying that I only have personal experience to go on (purchased home in KS earlier this year, and have purchased/sold a home in AR). You do not give the seller the document stating the amount you have been approved for. Your real estate agent (I recommend having one if you don't) will want to see it to make sure you will actually be able to purchase a house though. But the contract that is sent to the Seller states the total purchase price you are willing to pay and how much of that will be financed. Link to blank KS real estate contract shows what would be listed. Looks like it is from 2012 - it is similar to the one I had back in March, but not exactly the same format.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8c1451567018ae65689b6bac99a969b5", "text": "\"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for \"\"institutions\"\" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth. Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a39e5f0fa23d8f3eef2d9f75eafd4b26", "text": "FINRA defines institutional investors as: Institutional investors include banks, savings and loan associations, insurance companies, registered investment companies, registered investment advisors, a person or entity with assets of at least $50 million, government entities, employee benefit plans and qualified plans with at least 100 participants, FINRA member firms and registered persons, and a person acting solely on behalf of an institutional investor. From: http://www.finra.org/industry/issues/faq-advertising Based on Rules 2210(a)(4) and 4512(c). Institutional investors are expected to understand market risks and as a result, disclosure requirements are much lower (perhaps no SEC filings and no prospectus).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e3542af0fa7a035b01c65284f3a39088", "text": "Investment banks don't have to buy anything. If they don't think the stock is worth buying - they won't. If they think it is - others on the secondary market will probably think so too. Initial public offering is offering to the public - i.e.: theoretically anyone can participate and purchase stocks. The major investment firms are not buying the stocks for themselves - but for their clients who are participating in this IPO. I, for example, receive email notifications from my brokerage firm each time there's another IPO that they have access to, and I can ask the brokerage to buy stocks from the IPO on my behalf. When that happens - they don't buy the stocks themselves and then sell to me. No, what happens is that I buy a stock, through them, and they charge me a commission for the service. Usually IPO participation commissions are higher than regular trading commissions. Most of the time those who purchase stocks at IPO are institutional investors - i.e.: mutual funds, pension plans, investment banks for their managed accounts, etc. Retail investors would probably not participate in the IPO because of the costs, limited access (not all the brokerage firms have access to all the IPOs), and the uncertainty, and rather purchase the stocks later on a secondary market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af07ba093ad3bf3c12d63cecac20e87c", "text": "\"In the article itself, it's stated: *\"\"Yale University, where we work, has a de minimis exposure to IEX through an investment by one of the university’s external managers.\"\"* I mean, that's pretty straightforward to me. I promise you that Yale is also indirectly invested in every single public exchange out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18bf086eb9e21e1d63410fb0a3786dab", "text": "The role of business investors differs greatly within different organisations. If you are starting a business or already have a small business, business investors can be a key tool to get your business of the ground. Business investors give money to small businesses or start-ups in exchange for ownership in a part of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3", "text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c285533b113f9073d2326dd82af1a7a2", "text": "Little investors rarely have a say in it. If you have direct control over routing, that's one thing (some platforms allow it). But if you're a fund investor or a pension beneficiary, it's completely out of your hands. Re: The author. One of them - [David Swensen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_F._Swensen) - is actually the chief investment officer at Yale University. I'm pretty sure he has a clue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f619e556111df0fd3eaf002df79a9597", "text": "Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e9ebc57e4df203c6ab584cc9e5ec0ed", "text": "\"First of all, the annual returns are an average, there are probably some years where their return was several thousand percent, this can make a decade of 2% a year become an average of 20% . Second of all, accredited investors are allowed to do many things that the majority of the population cannot do. Although this is mostly tied to net worth, less than 3% of the US population is registered as accredited investors. Accredited Investors are allowed to participate in private offerings of securities that do not have to be registered with the SEC, although theoretically riskier, these can have greater returns. Indeed a lot of companies that go public these days only do so after the majority of the growth potential is done. For example, a company like Facebook in the 90s would have gone public when it was a million dollar company, instead Facebook went public when it was already a 100 billion dollar company. The people that were privileged enough to be ALLOWED to invest in Facebook while it was private, experienced 10000% returns, public stock market investors from Facebook's IPO have experienced a nearly 100% return, in comparison. Third, there are even more rules that are simply different between the \"\"underclass\"\" and the \"\"upperclass\"\". Especially when it comes to leverage, the rules on margin in the stock market and options markets are simply different between classes of investors. The more capital you have, the less you actually have to use to open a trade. Imagine a situation where a retail investor can invest in a stock by only putting down 25% of the value of the stock's shares. Someone with the net worth of an accredited investor could put down 5% of the value of the shares. So if the stock goes up, the person that already has money would earn a greater percentage than the peon thats actually investing to earn money at all. Fourth, Warren Buffett's fund and George Soros' funds aren't just in stocks. George Soros' claim to fame was taking big bets in the foreign exchange market. The leverage in that market is much greater than one can experience in the stock market. Fifth, Options. Anyone can open an options contract, but getting someone else to be on the other side of it is harder. Someone with clout can negotiate a 10 year options contract for pretty cheap and gain greatly if their stock or other asset appreciates in value much greater. There are cultural limitations that prompt some people to make a distinction between investing and gambling, but others are not bound by those limitations and can take any kind of bet they like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1", "text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09d73bab00ea66f3a7bab0e5279f1939", "text": "&gt; Also the institutional investor only has the advantage of leverage And, you know, capital, better data, better technical knowledge, and better just about everything else. It's the same reason why the average investor is better off buying a blue-chip stock while a buy-side guy buys more complex financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38f347119ddb7ea280ce6191e1008d26", "text": "\"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21", "text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cec8e3718d450184a4146aeaa725fb9", "text": "\"**David F. Swensen** David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^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/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e683e94cf2644484ac1676cade3c202", "text": "\"private investors that don't have the time or expertise for active investment. This may be known as every private investor. An index fund ensures average returns. The bulk of active trading is done by private institutions with bucketloads of experts studying the markets and AI scraping every bit of data it can get (from the news, stock market, the weather reports, etc...). Because of that, to get above average returns an average percent of the time, singular private investors have to drastically beat the average large team of individuals/software. Now that index ETF are becoming so fashionable, could there be a tipping point at which the market signals that active investors send become so diluted that this \"\"index ETF parasitism\"\" collapses? How would this look like and would it affect only those who invest in index ETF or would it affect the stock market more generally? To make this question perhaps more on-topic: Is the fact (or presumption) that index ETF rely indirectly on active investment decisions by other market participants, as explained above, a known source of concern for personal investment? This is a well-covered topic. Some people think this will be an issue. Others point out that it is a hard issue to bootstrap. I gravitate to this view. A small active market can support a large number of passive investors. If the number of active investors ever got too low, the gains & likelihood of gains that could be made from being an active investor would rise and generate more active investors. Private investing makes sense in a few cases. One example is ethics. Some people may not want to be invested, even indirectly, in certain companies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93e6f4f2c4c147ccebf57367703b8672", "text": "Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation. In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically. The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c020cee61c8b52238f5db2dd9a7d507", "text": "Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession. I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market. Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession. Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate. With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "02edd927316d3a17f1b61bb55968e196", "text": "Yes, and there are almost no checks (no pun intended) on people pulling money from your account using a routing number. It is an EXTREMELY insecure system. If you want a real Halloween scare, read this article: Easy Check Fraud Technique Draws Scrutiny. Unfortunately you just have to live with it. If you are curious why this loophole is allowed to continue, consider how hard it is to close it without undermining the convenience of checks. Short of you going to the bank with each person you write a check to and showing ID to validate the transaction, I don't see how you could continue to use a negotiable instrument like this without such a security hole. The ultimate answer is going to have to be replacing checks with other means of payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3", "text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14ab055436f15aed3e2ca0ee8ecd6fcf", "text": "The bottom line is to keep most of your money in accounts with no check privileges and to not give the account numbers for these accounts to anyone. Keep just enough in your checking account for the checks you are going to write.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d75262261aaee4439569628a663c0d7", "text": "\"That's accurate. Here is another risk with the current checking system, which many people are not aware of: Anyone who knows your checking account number can learn what your balance in that account is. (This is bank-specific, but it is possible at the major banks I've checked.) How does that work? Many banks have a phone line where you can dial up and interact with an automated voice response system, for various customer service tasks. One of the options is something like \"\"merchant check verification\"\". That option is intended to help a merchant who receives a check to verify whether the person writing the check has enough money in their account for the check to clear. If you select that option in the phone tree, it will prompt you to enter in the account number on the check and the amount of the check, and then it will respond by telling you either \"\"there are currently sufficient funds in the account to cash this check\"\" or \"\"there are not sufficient funds; this check would bounce\"\". Here's how you can abuse this system to learn how much someone has in their bank account, if you know their account number. You call up and check whether they've enough money to cash a $10,000 check (note that you don't actually have to have a check for $10,000 in your hands; you just need to know the account number). If the system says \"\"nope, it'd bounce\"\", then you call again and try $5,000. If the system says \"\"yup, sufficient funds for a $5,000 check\"\", then you try $7,500. If it says \"\"nope, not enough for that\"\", you try $6,250. Etcetera. At each step, you narrow the range of possible account balances by a factor of two. Consequently, after about a dozen or so steps, you will likely know their balance to within a few dollars. (Computer scientists know this procedure by the name \"\"binary search\"\". The rest of us may recognize it as akin to a game of \"\"20 questions\"\".) If this bothers you, you may be able to protect your self by calling up your bank and asking them how to prevent it. When I talked to my bank (Bank of America), they told me they could put a fraud alert flag on your account, which would disable the merchant check verification service for my account. It does mean that I have to provide a 3-digit PIN any time I phone up my bank, but that's fine with me. I realize many folks may terribly not be concerned about revealing their bank account balance, so in the grand scheme of things, this risk may be relatively minor. However, I thought I'd document it here for others to be aware of.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1338c98be810a7589d60fb24c4903d79", "text": "When an someone as esteemed and smart as Donald Knuth tells you the chequing system is busted it's time to close your cheque account, or I guess live with the associated risk. Answer to question, yes your account information can be used to commit fraud on you via your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7", "text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d946609ef38fb86422a19d3d63a6971", "text": "Yes this is a huge security loophole and many banks will do nothing to refund if you are scammed. For example for business accounts some Wells Fargo branches say you must notify within 24 hours of any check withdrawal or the loss is yours. Basically banks don't care - they are a monopoly system and you are stuck with them. When the losses and complaints get too great they will eventually implement the European system of electronic transfers - but the banks don't want to be bothered with that expense yet. Sure you can use paypal - another overpriced monopoly - or much better try Dwolla or bitcoin.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7b379bedf230127771cc0de462510532", "text": "This is the information required to wire money into your account from abroad. They would only need the account number and the ABA (routing) number to withdraw, and it is printed on every check you give.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d5890e675f59e1fbb5cf3627c912696", "text": "The only way someone can take money out of your account using just your sort code and account number is if you set up a direct debit to pay them (or someone pretending to be you sets up the direct debit). Even with Paperless DD's this can take some time. Anyone who can process debit card transactions can take money from your account if they have your debit card number, expiry date and cvv number. Direct debits do not have an expiry date so they are normally used for paying automatic regular long term bills (like rent, rates, electricity etc). Note, anyone with an ordinary bank account can pay money into account, using your sort code and account number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de461907150698ed96ffed19f2e047fb", "text": "From personal experience, I can tell you that bank account numbers are not unique. Someone from another branch of my bank was able to withdraw money from my account at my branch because they had the same account number. You are supposed to enter your branch number on the withdrawal slip in front of your account number. The person who got my money did not do this. Because it was at my branch, the teller debited my account for the transaction. I caught this on my monthly statement and immediately complained to my branch manager. He was able to retrieve the withdrawal slip and saw what had happened. He credited my account and said he was going to talk to the teller who should have asked for the branch number and/or should have noticed that the name and address on the withdrawal slip did not match those on my account. I would not have thought that the bank would allow this situation considering how many numbers are available to assign but they did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da0a33e57f0f0404070c71c19c000933", "text": "\"First, there are not necessarily two accounts involved. Usually the receiving party can take the check to the bank on which it is drawn and receive cash. In this case, there is only one bank, it can look to see that the account on which the check is drawn has sufficient funds, and make an (essentially irrevocable) decision to pay the bearer. (Essentially irrevocable precisely because the bearer did not necessarily have to present account information.) The more usual case is that the receiving party deposits the check into an account at their own bank. The receiving party's bank then (directly or indirectly - in the US via the Federal Reserve) presents the check to the paying party's bank. At that point if the there are insufficient funds, the check \"\"bounces\"\" and the receiving party's account will be debited. The receiving party's bank knows that account number because, in this case, the receiving party is a customer of the bank. This is why funds from check deposits are typically not available for immediate withdrawal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43e11b61c582bfaf936b78eedc373fcc", "text": "When I last asked a certain large bank in the US (in 2011 or 2012), they didn't offer expiring personal checks. (I think they did offer something like that for business customers.) They also told me that, even if the payee cashes the check a year later and the check bounces, even if it's because I have closed the respective account, he will be able to go to the police and file a report against me for non-payment. (This is what the customer service rep told me on the phone after a bit of prodding, but someone else feel free to improve this answer and fix details or disagree; it's hard to believe and quite outrageous if true.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd", "text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a", "text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43bf814aee8a481c647ff68c9defa496", "text": "\"As others have noted, in the U.S. a checking account gives you the ability to write a check, while a savings account does not. I think you know what a check is even if you don't use them, right? Let me know if you need an explanation. Personally, I rarely write paper checks any more. I have an account for a small side business, and I haven't bothered to get new checks printed since I moved 6 years ago even though the checks still have my old address, because I've only written I think 3 paper checks on that account in that time. From the bank's point of view, there are all sorts of government regulations that are different for the two types of accounts. But that is probably of little concern to you unless you own a bank. If the software you have bought allows you to do the things you need to do regardless of whether you call the account \"\"savings\"\" or \"\"checking\"\", then ... who cares? I doubt that the banking software police will come to your house and beat you into unconsciousness and arrest you because you labeled an account \"\"checking\"\" that you were supposed to label \"\"savings\"\". If one account type does what you need to do and the other doesn't, then use the one that works.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c78c7ad755e34be77c564bf31073b601", "text": "I'm guessing you're in the US? If so, yes, you can be prosecuted, but it's unlikely. Fraud crimes are up to a prosecutor to pursue, there are a lot of fraud cases and bystanders take low priority, I'm assuming you're passively complicit, not actively. If this is the case it's best to work with the bank to get your situation cleaned up and move on. These days, most banks have dealt with wire fraud at least once, and they're familiar with cashiers check fraud. A fair warning, the bank will report you, if they think you're involved, so if you are not a complete bystander, you may want to lawyer up. So hopefully you didn't try to spend any of the fraudulent money and hopefully you have proof of a third party, because they will want a connection to that person (name/number/other) to file their report.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47fe6feea862a9e94ee988d3f57832a7", "text": "You encountered a quite common scam: You are supposed to perform a job, they send you a check for too much money, and you are supposed to pay them some money back. Ten weeks later the check bounces and your money is gone. That's these people's job. They do this all day long. The success rate isn't very high, so they are busy doing this all day. These scammers might have your name and address, but if that is all there is, they can get names and addresses of 100s of people by using the phone book, and they don't. I wouldn't say that it is impossible to turn your name and address into money, but it is hard work. So it is quie unlikely to happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58654a927a52b3436e6c0ccfaf535765", "text": "Avoid talking to a person: Just use an automated system, such as an ATM or a cellphone app. Automated systems will ONLY scan for the RTN # and Account number at the bottom of the check (the funny looking blocky numbers). The automated system will not care who the check is made out to, or who is present, so long as you have an account to credit the money into, and the account number on the check can get the money debited properly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8c78aabc5f37a828f69b2ed51edda39", "text": "If you have the expired check in hand and take it back to the bank that issued it to you, I'd think they could do something for you. (I'd hope they would, anyway.) But automatically? I don't think so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bc0051425fa5f3365e51dec08592589", "text": "I agree with you that smartphone deposits make you more vulnerable to a variety of issues. Checks are completely insecure, since anyone with your routing/account number can create a check, and individuals are less likely to shred or otherwise secure the check properly. Ways to control this risk are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dec97805d71df6a1e4966b5cb02aa13", "text": "\"If someone gains access to these data, he could use social engineering approach to impersonate you - i.e. call the American Express and ask tell he he is you and he lost the access to the account and he needs the access to be reset and sent to certain email, and if they doubt it's you he would send them the statement data, even on company letterhead (which he would be able to fake since he has the data from the statements, and AE has no idea how the authentic letterhead looks like). He could also do the opposite trick - like calling your assistant or even yourself and saying something like \"\"I'm from American Express, calling about the transaction at this-and-this date and this-and-this time, this amount, please confirm you are {your name} and your address is {your address}, I need to confirm something\"\" - which would make it appear as he is really from AE since he knows all these details - and then ask you some detail he's missing \"\"for security\"\" - like your birth date or last digits of SSID or anything like that - and then use these details to impersonate you to AE. So putting all this info together where it can be accessed by strangers does have risks. It may not work out if both you and AE personnel are vigilant and follow instructions to the letter, but we know it not always so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f21ce3d3ec8bae1cde5b264f8112e6", "text": "POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "46985454ed5256255c157beed1491d00", "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.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "aa908a8d6e858642e3071789fcc63f55", "text": "This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f617125f90004d1be781ecd016139541", "text": "There is no way to find out what future will be if you have only quote from past. In other words, nobody is able to trade history successfully and nobody will be able, ever. Quote's movement is not random. Quote is not price. Because brokerage account is not actual money. Any results in past do not guarantee you anything. Brokerage accounts should only have portions of money which you are ready to loose completely. Example: Investment firms recommended buying falling Enron stocks, even when it collapsed 3 times, then - bankrupt, suddenly. What a surprise!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05516c497d6f1837c83f65431ab6d7ab", "text": "There are multiple factors at play that drive stock price movements, but one that can be visualized is that stocks can be priced relative to other (similar stocks). When one stock price goes up without fundamental changes (i.e. daily market noise/movements), it becomes slightly more expensive relative to it's peers. Opportunists will sell the now slightly more expensive stock, while others may buying the slightly cheaper (relatively) peer stock. Imagine millions of transactions like this happening throughout each hour, downward selling pressure on a stock that rises too fast in value relative to it's peers or the market, and upward buying pressure on stocks that are relatively cheaper than it's peers. It pushes two stocks towards an equilibrium that is directionally the same. Another way to think of it is lets say tomorrow there is $10B in net new dollars moved into buy orders for stocks that comes from net selling of bonds (this is also partly why bonds/stocks are generally inversely related). That money goes to buys stocks ABC, XYZ, EFG. As the price of those goes up with more buying pressure, stocks JKL, MNO, PQR are relatively a tad cheaper, so some money starts to flow into there. Repeat until you get a large majority of the stocks that buyers are willing to buy and you can see why stocks move in the same direction a lot of times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df", "text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd84d772424b223ce8d4c1a696eb77c", "text": "It might be clearer to think of it as price going up when a dividend is expected, since that's money you'll get right back. As the delay before the next dividend payment increases, that becomes less of a factor,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89e3beda30f53ba8ac2de67b874e8dd3", "text": "This question is impossible answer for all markets but there are 2 more possibilities in my experience:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "478770aad57eeee68025f3db3ee169f7", "text": "\"Trends and trajectories mean nothing when the market is at an inflection point. You can't predict the future when you don't know what the players have planned. EDIT: Make that \"\"can't know\"\", since even the big players don't know what they are doing next.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfb745490ac34704883d49a7836287d0", "text": "News-driven investors tend to be very short-term focussed investors. They often trade by using index futures (on the S&P 500 index for instance).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72728dfe747564351ad248445cf8d524", "text": "There's an interview with Andrew Lo on the WSJ that's worth a listen. One idea he touched on briefly is how the rise of index funds may be creating an investor monoculture. If this is the case, then he thinks it could lead to more market volatility. Interesting stuff. http://www.wsj.com/podcasts/andrew-w-lo-talks-how-to-evolve-with-adaptive-markets/4B141ED2-23EA-409E-BFEE-96791EEB473E.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98bb0615917b4152bd8a3b8a12965b0", "text": "I understand now. Thank you. How important is the existence of effective price discovery tools in a market? And the example that you gave of a farmer is good, but when I as the owner of a company, get futures regarding, say, the stocks that I own of my company, won't that be insider trading if I do that after knowing that the value of my stocks will fall? If people assume price discovery in this case, won't they also have to assume that I am doing insider trading?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e62eb8056bd1d8bfc666a98e2fbf0919", "text": "\"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63a93c1cfbf0f9667863828d242469fd", "text": "People are trying ideas like this, actually. Though they generally aren't very public about it. While keshlam ventures into hyperbole when mentioning Watson, he is certainly correct human language parsing is a extremely hard problem. While it is not always true that the big players will know before the news (sometimes that would qualify as insider trading). The volume spike that you mention generally comes as the news arrives to the major (and minor) players. So, if you have an algorithm run after the volume spike the price will likely have adjusted significantly already. You can try to avoid this by constantly scanning for news on a set of stocks however this becomes an even harder problem. Or maybe by becoming more specific and parsing known important and specific news sources (farm report for instance) and trying to do so faster than anyone else. These are some methods people use to not be too late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0479838bc285731ab73100727a2ccdb6", "text": "Recommended? There's really no perfect answer. You need to know the motivations of the participants in the markets that you will be participating in. For instance, the stock market's purpose is to raise capital (make as much money as possible), whereas the commodities-futures market's purpose is to hedge against producing actual goods. The participants in both markets have different reactions to changes in price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b", "text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b05473247a4a23f270cd87f3c9d5db88", "text": "While there are lots of really plausible explanations for why the market moves a certain way on a certain day, no one really knows for sure. In order to do that, you would need to understand the 'minds' of all the market players. These days many of these players are secret proprietary algorithms. I'm not quibbling with the specifics of these explanations (I have no better) just pointing out that these are just really hypotheses and if the market starts following different patterns, they will be tossed into the dust bin of 'old thinking'. I think the best thing you can explain to your son is that the stock market is basically a gigantic highly complex poker game. The daily gyrations of the market are about individuals trying to predict where the herd is going to go next and then after that and then after that etc. If you want to help him understand the market, I suggest two things. The first is to find or create a simple market game and play it with him. The other would be to teach him about how bonds are priced and why prices move the way they do. I know this might sound weird and most people think bonds are esoteric but there are bonds have a much simpler pricing model based on fundamental financial logic. It's much easier then to get your head around the moves of the bond markets because the part of the price based on beliefs is much more limited (i.e. will the company be able pay & where are rates going.) Once you have that understanding, you can start thinking about the different ways stocks can be valued (there are many) and what the market movements mean about how people are valuing different companies. With regard to this specific situation, here's a different take on it from the 'priced in' explanation which isn't really different but might make more sense to your son: Pretend for a second that at some point these stocks did move seasonally. In the late fall and winter when sales went up, the stock price increased in kind. So some smart people see this happening every year and realize that if they bought these stocks in the summer, they would get them cheap and then sell them off when they go up. More and more people are doing this and making easy money. So many people are doing it that the stock starts to rise in the Summer now. People now see that if they want to get in before everyone else, they need to buy earlier in the Spring. Now the prices start rising in the Spring. People start buying in the beginning of the year... You can see where this is going, right? Essentially, a strategy to take advantage of well known seasonal patterns is unstable. You can't profit off of the seasonal changes unless everyone else in the market is too stupid to see that you are simply anticipating their moves and react accordingly.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fb9010f18a4e49aa74aab3af0e2b48b8", "text": "\"The general answer to any \"\"is it worth it\"\" insurance question is \"\"no,\"\" because the insurance company is making a profit on the insurance.* To decide if you want the insurance, you need to figure out how much you can afford to pay if something happens, how much they cover, and how badly you want to transfer your risk to them. If you won't have trouble coming up with the $4000 deductible should you need to, then don't get this extra insurance. * I did not mean to imply that insurance is always a bad idea or that insurance companies are cheating their customers. Please let me explain further. When you buy any product from a business, that business is making a profit. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. They are providing a service and should be compensated for their efforts. Insurance companies also provide a service, but unlike other types of businesses, their product is monetary. You pay them money now, and they might pay you money later. If they pay you more money then you spent, you came out ahead, and if you spend more money then they give you, it was a loss for you. In order for the insurance company to make a profit, they need to bring in more money than they pay out. In fact, they need to bring in a lot more money then they pay out, because in addition to their profit, they have all the overhead of running a business. As a result, on average, you will come out behind when you purchase insurance. This means that when you are on the fence about whether or not to purchase any insurance product, the default choice should be \"\"no.\"\" On average, you are financially better off without insurance. Now, that doesn't mean you should never buy insurance. As mentioned by commenter @xiaomy, insurance companies spread risk across all of their customers. If I am in a situation where I have a risk of financial ruin in a certain circumstance, I can eliminate that risk by purchasing insurance. For example, I have term life insurance, because if I were to pass away, it would be financially catastrophic for my family. (I'm hoping that the insurance company makes 100% profit on that deal!) I also continue to buy expensive health insurance because an unexpected medical event would be financially devastating. However, I always decline the extended warranty when I buy a $300 appliance, because I don't have any trouble coming up with another $300 in the unlikely event that it breaks, and I would rather keep the money than contribute to the profits of an insurance company unnecessarily. In my original answer above, I pointed out how you would determine whether or not to purchase this particular insurance product. This product pays out a bunch of relatively small amounts for certain events, up to a limit of $4000. Would this $4000 be hard for you to come up with if you needed to? If so, get the insurance. But if you are like me and have an emergency fund in place to handle things like this, then you are financially better off declining this policy.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1837651d08056accb28bde3581e2eb92", "text": "\"The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, \"\"how likely am I to need it?\"\", and \"\"what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?\"\". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being \"\"what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim\"\"), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the \"\"normal\"\" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign \"\"ownership contracts\"\", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two \"\"buckets\"\" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what \"\"normal\"\" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of \"\"lose a little every month\"\" or \"\"lose it all at once\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c73e81e82c0d59a519f5f9f268ff482b", "text": "You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b303d2f98047b406c05fdfe635ca779c", "text": "\"There's not a single answer here, as the premium you pay for car insurance depends on multiple factors, including (but not limited to): All these factors contribute to the likelihood of getting into an accident, and the expected damage from an accident. So just having an accident and making a claim will likely raise your premium (all else being equal), but whether or not it will be cheaper in the long run depends (obviously) on how much your premium goes up, which cannot determined without all of the facts. Your agent could tell you how much it would go up, but even making such an inquiry would likely be noted on your insurance record, and may cause your premium to go up (although probably not by as much). However, the point of insurance is to reduce the out-of-pocket expenses from future accidents, so the question to ask is: How likely am I to have another accident, and if I do, can I pay cash for it or will I need to offset some cost with an insurance claim. Do you risk making a claim and having your rates go up by more than $700 over the next 3-4 years (the rough time it takes for a \"\"surcharge\"\" to expire)? Or do you just pay for the repair out-of-pocket and keep your premiums lower?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f06c64f3954dc1ce53ca1017d37773a", "text": "\"I've lived this decision, and from my \"\"anecdata\"\": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a \"\"named non-owner\"\" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53565154111376f435af2c4d8b50d458", "text": "As you say life insurance is about covering the loss of income, so unless your child is an actor or musical prodigy or similar and already earning money, there is no income to cover, and in fact you would have less of a financial commitment without a child to provide for. The other angle is that child life insurance is cheap and they'll have lower premiums than an adult. I'll quote the referenced article directly to address that: Another ploy is that children's life insurance is cheap. It is inexpensive compared to adult life insurance because, plain and simply, children rarely die. While the numbers that the sales agent puts together may make children's life insurance sound like a great deal, take the time to run what you'd have if you instead invested the exact same amount used on the insurance fees into a Roth IRA and you'll find the true cost of purchasing this type of life insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c73c24fa91cd5756013eee21f7adfb", "text": "I'm not the guy you're responding to, but you asked a good question. There's a dearth of data, but [about 1% is the estimate.] (http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20110814/NEWS03/308149986#) Either way, having increased young adults on an insurance plan is a good thing. Socially, this demographic is exceptionally stinging from the Great Recession and I think the ability to give young adults health insurance (and thus the freedom to start developing a career without worrying about health coverage) outweighs the nominal additional premium costs. Fiscally, having young adults in a group plan decreases the risk profile of that plan since young adults don't incur the same expenses that a 45 or 50 year old would.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e37f85cd922fdb9702e05ac45d345b6", "text": "So far all insurances start from the perspective of the insurance taker. However, I find it much more intuitive to look from the perspective of the insurance giver: Note that the exact amount may differ, but management fees of a few dozen percent are quite realistic. Note that it is not as unreasonable as it may sound at first, some costs: And of course most insurance companies will want to keep some profit as well. If you are completely risk averse, typically it is only financial beneficial to get insurance if you have a significantly higher risk profile. Examples of this (not an expert on boats): Note that piece of mind may also be worth getting the insurance for, for instance if you frequently put others in the position to crash your boat, and don't want to create an awkward financial discussion when they do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd279259b01d20f763a01c8e1039cfca", "text": "You may not have considered this, and it will depend on your local laws, but if someone causes you damage, you can sue them for the damages. In your case, two drivers forced you to be involved in an accident, which made your premiums go up, which is a real damage for which they might be responsible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1674dbe0971d64da0bdbd3313c7196", "text": "\"There are (at least) two problems with the argument suggested in the OP. First, the ability to cover the cost, doesn't mean willingness, ease, or no major side effects of doing so. Second is the mitigation of \"\"upside risk\"\". It might be true that the most usual loss is small and manageable, but 10% of incidents could be considerably larger and 1% may be very much larger - without limit. Your own attitude to risk and loss will determine how much these are seen as unlikely+ignore, or worst case situation+avoid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54c61d2d88276a215c365b346476ca43", "text": "\"Even though this isn't really personal finance related I still feel like there are some misconceptions here that could be addressed. I don't know where you got the phrase \"\"pass-through\"\" insurance from. What you're describing is a self-funded plan. In a self-funded arrangement an employer contracts a third-party-administrator (TPA), usually one of the big health insurance carriers, to use it's provider network, process and adjudicate claims, etc. In addition to the TPA there will be some sort of stop-loss insurance coverage on each participant. Stop-loss coverage usually provides a maximum amount of risk on a given member and on the entire population for a given month and/or year and/or lifetime. The employer's risk is in between the plan deductible and the stop loss coverage (assuming the stop-loss doesn't have a maximum). Almost all of the claim dollars in a given plan will come from very very few people. These costs typically arise out of very unforeseen diagnoses not chronic issues. A cancer patient can easily cost $1,000,000 in a year. Someone's diabetes maintenance medicine or other chronic maintenance will cost no where near what a botched surgery will in a year. If we take a step back there are really four categories of employer insurance. Small group is tightly regulated. Usually plan premiums are filed with a state authority, there is no negotiating, your group's underwriting performance has zero impact on your premiums. Employers have no way of obtaining any medical/claim information on employees. Mid-market is a pooled arrangement. The overall pool has a total increase, and your particular group performs better or worse than the pool which may impact premiums. Employers get very minor claims data, things like the few highest claims, or number of claims over a certain threshold, but no employee specific information. Large-group is a mostly unpooled arrangement. Generally your group receives it's own rating based on its individual underwriting performance. In general the carrier is offloading some risk to a stop-loss carrier and employer's get a fair amount of insight in to claims, though again, not with employee names. Self-funded is obviously self-contained. The employer sets up a claims checking account. The TPA has draft authority on the account. The employee's typically have no idea the plan is self funded, their ID cards will have the carrier logo, and the carrier deals with them just as it would any other member. Generally when a company is this size it has a separate benefits committee, those few people will have some level of insight in to claims performance and stop-loss activity. This committee will have nothing to do with the hiring process. There are some new partially self-funded arrangements, which is just a really low-threshold (and relatively expensive) stop-loss program, that's becoming somewhat popular in the mid-market group size as employers attempt to reduce medical spend. I think when you start thinking on a micro, single employee level, you really lose sight of the big picture. Why would an employer hire this guy who has this disease/chronic problem that costs $50,000 per year? And logically you can get to the conclusion that with a self-funded plan it literally costs the company the money so the company has an incentive not to hire the person. I understand the logic of the argument, but at the self funded level the plan is typically costing north of half a million dollars each month. So a mid-level HR hiring manager 1. isn't aware of specific plan claims or costs and is not part of the benefits executive committee, 2. won't be instructed to screen for health deficiencies because it's against the law, 3. a company generally won't test the water here because $50,000 per year is less than 1% of the company's annual medical expenses, 4. $50,000 is well below the cost to litigate a discrimination law-suit. Really the flaw in your thought process is that $50,000 in annual medical expense is a lot. A harsh child-birth can run in the $250,000 range, so these companies never hire women? Or never hire men who could add a spouse who's in child bearing years? Or never hire women who might have a female spouse who could be in child bearing years? A leukemia diagnosis will ratchet up $1,000,000 in a year. Spend a bit of time in intensive care for $25,000 per day and you're fired? A few thousand bucks on diabetes meds isn't anything relative to the annual cost of your average self-funded plan. The second flaw is that the hiring managers get insight in to specific claims. They don't. Third, you don't hand over medical records on your resume anyway. I typed this out in one single draft and have no intention of editing anything. I just wanted paint a broad picture, I'm sure things can be nit-picked or focused on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ec144af98b1761447a9fa17d518ec0", "text": "But they did have the accident. The insurance is in case they become unemployed which they did. If you want to come up with some alternative concept called destitution insurance or some such then go for it. So far that has turned out to be both technically and politically impossible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cf3a0af9562c14c623d6225f986f0ce", "text": "\"The key point to answer the question is to consider risk aversion. Assume I suggest a game to you: Throw a coin and if you win, you get $5, if you lose nothing happens. Will you play the game? Of course, you will - you have nothing to lose! What if I suggest this: If you win, you get $10,000,005 and if you lose you must pay $10,000,000 (I also accept cars, houses, spouses, and kidneys as payment). While the expected value of the second game is the same as for the first, if you lose the second game you are more or less doomed to spend the rest of your life in poverty or not even have a rest of your life. Therefore, you will not wish to play the second game. Well, maybe you do - but probably only if you are very, very rich and can easily afford a loss (even if you had $11,000,000 you won't be as happy with a possible raise to $21,000,005 as you'd be unhappy with dropping to a mere $1,000,000, so you'd still not like to play). Some model this by taking logarithms: If your capital grows from $500 to $1000 or from $1000 to $2000, in both cases it doubles, hence is considered the same \"\"personal gain\"\", effectively. And, voíla, the logartithm of your capital grows by the same amount in both cases. This refelcts that a rich man will not be as happy about finding a $10 note as a poor man will be about finding a nickel. The effect of an insurance is that you replace an uncertain event of great damage with a certain event of little damage. Of course, the insurance company plays the same game, with roles swapped - so why do they play? One point is that they play the game very often, which tends to nivel the risks - unless you do something stupid and insure all inhabitants of San Francisco (and nobody else) against eqarthquakes. But also they have enough capital that they can afford to lose the game. In a fair situation, i.e. when the insurance costs just as much as damage cost multiplied with probability of damage, a rational you would eagerly buy the insurance because of risk aversion. Therefore, the insurance will in effect be able to charge more than the statistically fair price and many will still (gnawingly) buy it, and that's how they make a living. The decision how much more one is willing to accept as insurance cost is also a matter of whether you can afford a loss of the insured item easily, with regrets, barely, or not all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2e56eec51fa0c7f632286583267210f", "text": "\"I think at this point you and the other person who seems to ask this question in multiple permutations needs to talk to a local expert rather than continuing to ask the same questions with slight fact variations. This all happened when you were 9. If you think there was foul play involved, at the minimum it will be difficult to prove 16 years on. Somehow I doubt there are 2 people on Toronto whose parents bought them whole life insurance policies in 2000 asking the same questions at the same time. If you don't want the coverage or you think the whole thing was a mistake, cash the policy out. According to the other question about this policy there's nearly $7,000 of cash value there. Just take the money out and move on with your life. Unless you're willing to sue your \"\"mentally ill\"\" mother over the $1,500 net loss ($530 premium times 16 years minus $7,000 cash value) I'm not sure what recourse or advice you're looking for. And even that assumes she's paying the premium with your money. Separately, if your mother is the owner of the policy and paying with her money I'm not sure why this involves you at all. Parents buy life insurance on their children all the time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f79e57b1d86b5de06f91f3c14f674b8", "text": "As for a formula, there isn't a simple one that you can apply to every type insurance. I'll try my best for a simple answer. Is the event devastating enough to change your lifestyle (looking at life necessities, not wants and nice to haves)? Is the event very likely to happen? Do you have enough emergency funds to cover such an event? Once that emergency fund is utilized, how long does it take you to restore that fund to be ready for the next event? If the event is devastating enough and is very likely to happen and you do not have the cash to cover the event, and/or it would take too long to restore that emergency fund, then it makes sense to consider insurance. Then you would have to examine if the benefit(s) outweight cost of the premium paid for the insurance. If it is pennies of premium for a dollar of benefit, then it makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0986fd839af7054f8dc1c66d227bf882", "text": "The smaller and more quantifiable and consistent risks will probably result (obviously in addition to smaller premiums) in a smaller spread in favor of the insurance company since there is a lot more leverage for companies like Tesla to negotiate with to drive down prices. It may reduce costs for Geico but it sure as hell will reduce profits too.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0a6ae037fbb51b1c3c62cad032ee4ce", "text": "I'm not positive my answer is complete, but from information on my broker's website, the following fees apply to a US option trade (which I assume you're concerned with given fee in dollars and the mention of the Options Clearing Corporation): They have more detail for other countries -- see https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/en/index.php?f=commission&p=options1 for North America. Use the sub-menu near the top of the page to pick Europe or Asia. The brokerage-charged commission for this broker is as low as $0.25 per contract with a $1.00 minimum. Though I've been charged less than $1 to STO an options position, as well as less than $1 to BTC an options position, so not sure about that minimum. Regarding what I read as your overall underlying question (why are option fees so high), in my research this broker has one of the cheapest commission rates on options I've ever seen. When I participate in certain discussions, I'm routinely told that these fees are unbelievable and that $5.95, $7.95, or even $9.95 are considered low fees. I've heard this so much, and discussed commissions with enough people who've refused to switch brokers, that I conclude there just isn't enough competition to drive prices lower. If most people won't switch brokers to go from $9.95 to $1 per trade, there simply isn't a reason to lower rates.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7224cc805b4b4d61f2d3ff03be518afa", "text": "\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc7555754acdc44099d4e3b5c47bde52", "text": "\"All discount brokers offer a commission structure that is based on the average kind of order that their target audience will make. Different brokers advertise to different target audiences. They could all have a lot lower commissions than they do. The maximum commission price for the order ticket is set at $99 by the industry securities regulators. When discount brokers came along and started offering $2 - $9.99 trades, it was simply because these new companies could be competitive in a place where incumbents were overcharging. The same exists with Robinhood. The market landscape and costs have changed over the last decade with regulation NMS, and other brokerage firms never needed to update drastically because they could continue making a lot on commissions with nobody questioning it. The conclusion being that other brokers can also charge a lot less, despite their other overhead costs. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms (and anyone else trading directly with the exchanges), are paid by the exchanges for adding liquidity. Not only are many trades placed with no commission for the broker, they actually earn money for placing the trade. If Robinhood was doing you any favors, they would be paying you. But nobody questions free commissions so they don't. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms, sells your trading data to the highest bidder. This is called \"\"payment for order flow\"\", these subscribers see your order on the internet in route to the exhange, and before your order gets to the exchange, the subscriber sends a different order to the exchange so they either get filled before you do (analogous to front running, but different enough to not be illegal) or they alter the price of the thing you wanted to buy or sell so that you have to get a worse price. These subscribers have faster computers and faster internet access than other market participants, so are able to do this so quickly. They are also burning a lot of venture capital like all startups. You shouldn't place too much faith in the idea they are making [enough] money. They also have plans to earn interest off of balances in a variety of ways and offer more options at a price (like margin accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04a867cbd486ecd371d4095f9f79b6f", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7", "text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a75b535aa087132d36f9dd54f4abc64", "text": "I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89ec2c32f8875d784be9200e9b3c8c6d", "text": "\"I think the issue you are having is that the option value is not a \"\"flow\"\" but rather a liability that changes value over time. It is best to illustrate with a balance sheet. The $33 dollars would be the premium net of expense that you would receive from your brokerage for having shorted the options. This would be your asset. The liability is the right for the option owner (the person you sold it to) to exercise and purchase stock at a fixed price. At the moment you sold it, the \"\"Marked To Market\"\" (MTM) value of that option is $40. Hence you are at a net account value of $33-$40= $-7 which is the commission. Over time, as the price of that option changes the value of your account is simply $33 - 2*(option price)*(100) since each option contract is for 100 shares. In your example above, this implies that the option price is 20 cents. So if I were to redo the chart it would look like this If the next day the option value goes to 21 cents, your liability would now be 2*(0.21)*(100) = $42 dollars. In a sense, 2 dollars have been \"\"debited\"\" from your account to cover your potential liability. Since you also own the stock there will be a credit from that line item (not shown). At the expiry of your option, since you are selling covered calls, if you were to be exercised on, the loss on the option and the gain on the shares you own will net off. The final cost basis of the shares you sold will be adjusted by the premium you've received. You will simply be selling your shares at strike + premium per share (0.20 cents in this example)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42d67907fdf339a103597d004144c9be", "text": "When my orders fill, I'll often see a 1000 shares go through over 4-6 transactions, with a few cents difference high to low, but totaling the transaction cost, it adds to one commission (say $10 for my broker). Are you sure a series of partial fills would result in as many as 20 commissions?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7e2fad44b5aaa612308ce54e0a84d92", "text": "Well, the largest, in terms of both volume and unfortunately, contact size is the options on the S&P futures index. It's based on one contract which is $250 times the current S&P index, or just over $300K current value. This does not make for too cheap an option cost, but it's definitely the largest as you requested. For the average Joe, or Ray, in this case, the most popular ETFs are SPY and DIA for the S&P and Dow Jones, respectively. These are reasonably sized so their options are within range of your goal. See the SPY options at Yahoo. Then flip over to the DIA options. (SPY reflects 1/10 the S&P so an option contract, on 100 SPY shares is effectively on 10 times the S&P index or 1/25 the futures option pricing.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e4aaf1697caa668813199234ae82966", "text": "Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bada6c854343fb7d5ca949eb55eca134", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f", "text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dd158484be3298885447d00cdb0af66", "text": "\"Putting them on line 10 is best suited for your situation. According to Quickbooks: Commissions and Fees (Line 10) Commissions/fees paid to nonemployees to generate revenue (e.g. agent fees). It seems like this website you are using falls under the term \"\"nonemployees\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "292af5056e67df016cfb985c41d5429a", "text": "Marketwatch reports that the 108 strike call option sells for 1.45, down 1.53 from yesterday. If we split the bid and ask you get 1.415. That is what that contract will, likely, trade at. The biggest problems with options are commissions and liquidity. I have seen a commission as high as $45 per trade. I have also seen open interest disappear overnight. Even if you obtain contracts that become worth more than you paid for them you may find that no one wants to pay you what they are worth. Track your trade over a few weeks to see how you would have done. It is my experience that the only people who make money on options are the brokers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4595749811c8e457318e38656f004889", "text": "In the scenario you describe, and really, in any scenario, by the nature of how option contracts work: a higher strike put will necessarily be more expensive than the lower strike put (everything else being equal). the lower strike call will necessarily be more expensive than the higher strike call (everything else being equal). In put options, the buyer has the right to sell stock for the strike price. So the higher the strike price, the more money the buyer of the put option can make by selling the shares of stock at a higher price. In call options, it's the exact opposite: buyers of the call option have the right to buy stock at the strike price. The lower the strike price, the better for the buyer: they have the right to buy stock for a lower amount of money. So it must be worth more.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "34b8238b9b341a369a39f1f688b488d3", "text": "\"If you don't plan to stay in it, it is never good money to try to buy a house in a bad neighborhood. The question you want to be asking is probably \"\"Is it smart to buy this piece of real estate,\"\" not \"\"is it smart to buy a house in college.\"\" In this case, it's probably not smart because you won't actually have revenue from the property (you'll break even compared to renting), you may face some expensive repairs (water heater or other appliances going out, etc.), and you may find that your startup costs in things like lawn mowers, etc. is not worth the hassle (or cost of lawn service if you have someone else do it.) On top of that, can you get a loan with your proven income and assets? Don't forget to factor the cost of selling the house again into it -- and how long can you leave it on the market after you move out if it doesn't sell without going bankrupt yourself? In my opinion, it'd be a giant albatross around your neck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5", "text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b7f5a8f33f6c94d368f633b3820abe", "text": "\"People have lost money buying houses in good to great neighborhoods. It's a pretty large red flag that you state this so clearly \"\"the neighborhood is pretty bad.\"\" I'd rather buy a bad house in a great neighborhood, and spend my weekends fixing it up, turning sweat equity into real equity. A two year bet? I'd pass. Close to the school, high demand area, and my answer might change. (And, \"\"welcome, stranger\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e751ad46b15dcfed77f406adfa10c5dd", "text": "I've heard success stories but personally, I was considering it and I'm so glad I didn't. I ended up hating the atmosphere; left after one semester. To take care of that house I rent out, I'd need to hire someone, or drive 2.5h each way for anything that needed my attention. If you plan to stay in the area, I'd consider the housing prices, the rental market, considering the responsibility of maintenance, your expected margin (trust me, it will be lower. I've never heard a landlord say he didn't encounter significant unintended expenses.) It's such a unique situation, it really requires more detail. After all, you'd be saving rent, have control over the house and who lives there, but you have a whole hell of a lot of responsibility. I met one guy who had basically became the house's mom because he had a vested interest and was always cleaning up spills, preventing staining or damage to the paint, facing awkward social situations as they tried to chase down rent. With the right people I've seen it go very well. Oh, one more caveat. With a live-in super', they can provide notice of any necessary repairs instantly and from there, the clock starts. They can legally withhold rent until the repairs are completed and if you're not too liquid after that down payment and the mortgage payments, plus school, etc.. this could put you between a rock and some hard ass creditors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1db11ee8f2a1f41b9ccf17f03879e65b", "text": "\"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is \"\"gentrification,\"\" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four \"\"guys\"\" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four \"\"girls\"\" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be \"\"guys.\"\" I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump \"\"cut his teeth\"\" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what \"\"feels right,\"\" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d9b3d137a9a7b62ce07f8c493bc452fd", "text": "\"As Yishani points out, you always have to do due diligence in buying a house. As I mentioned in this earlier post I'd highly recommend reading this book on buying a house associated with the Wall Street Journal - it clearly describes the benefits and challenges of owning a house. One key takeaway I had was - on average houses have a \"\"rate of return\"\" on par with treasury bills. Its best to buy a house if you want to live in a house, not as thinking about it as a \"\"great investment\"\". And its certainly worth the 4-6 hours it takes to read the book cover to cover.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1341e48962baac52755c3d92cdd4d9c", "text": "the total principal is also dropping - you mean you're paying it down, right? All else the same, if you found a house whose payments are less than rent, and planned to stay long term, buying can make sense. But let's not forget the other costs and risks. How badly do you want to be a homeowner? Adding image from another post here: This shows that housing prices have fallen below the long term trend line and equilibrium level.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a33d982f23e79ac83614f74dd4c8f6a", "text": "\"A home actually IS a terrible investment. It has all the traits of something you would NEVER want to plunge your hard-earned money into. The only way that buying a house makes good money sense is if you pay cash for it and get a really good deal. It should also be a house you can see yourself keeping for decades or until you're older and want something easier to take care of. Of course, nothing can replace \"\"sense of ownership\"\" or \"\"sense of pride\"\" other than owning a house. And your local realtor is banking (really, laughing all the way to the bank) on your emotions overcoming your smart money savvy. This post really goes to work listing all the reasons why a house is a horrible investment. Should be required reading for everyone about to buy a house. Why your house is a terrible investment - jlcollinsnh.com TLDR; - You must decide what is more important, the money or the feelings. But you can't have both. If you read the article linked and still want to buy a house...then you probably should.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7319e7d344e18f21491dba0ebe7e93f6", "text": "All of RonJohn's reasons to say no are extremely valid. There are also two more. First, the cost of a mortgage is not the only cost of owning a house. You have to pay taxes, utilities, repairs, maintenence, insurance. Those are almost always hundreds of dollars a month, and an unlucky break like a leaking roof can land you with a bill for many thousands of dollars. Second owning a house is a long term thing. If you find you have to sell in a year or two, the cost of making the sale can be many thousands of dollars, and wipe out all the 'savings' you made from owning rather than renting. I would suggest a different approach, although it depends very much on your circumstances and doesn't apply to everybody. If there is someone you know who has money to spare and is concerned for your welfare (your mention of a family that doesn't want you to work for 'academic reason' leads me to believe that might be the case) see if they are prepared to buy a house and rent it to you. I've known families do that when their children became students. This isn't necessarily charity. If rents are high compared to house prices, owning a house and renting it out can be very profitable, and half the battle with renting a house is finding a tenant who will pay rent and not damage the house. Presumably you would qualify. You could also find fellow-students who you know to share the rent cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07b710be19ecd9d427a1c15c598c99b9", "text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3cbcb693bfa4fa439a973ca08d06e18", "text": "\"If the job looks good, I wouldn't let having to relocate stop you. Some companies will help you with relocation expenses, like paying travel expenses, the movers, the security deposit on an apartment, etc. It doesn't hurt to ask if they \"\"help with moving expenses\"\". If they say no, fine. I wouldn't expect a company to decide not to hire you for asking such a question. I would certainly not buy immediately upon moving. Buying a house is a serious long-term commitment. What if after a few months you discover that this job is not what you thought it was? What if you discover that you hate the area for whatever reason? Etc. Or even if you are absolutely sure that won't happen, it's very hard to buy a house long distance. How many trips can you make to look at different houses, learn about neighborhoods, get a feel for market prices, etc? A few years ago I moved just a couple of hundred miles to a neighboring state, and I rented an apartment for about 2 years before buying a house, for all these reasons. Assuming the company won't help with moving expenses, do you have the cash to make the move? If you're tight, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. If you're six months out of college you probably don't have a lot of stuff. (When I got my first job out of college, I fit everything I owned in the back seat of my Pinto, and tied my one piece of furniture to the roof. :-) If you can't fit all your stuff in your car, rent a truck and a tow bar to pull your car behind. Get a cheap apartment. You'll probably have to pay the first month's rent plus a security deposit. You can usually furnish your first apartment from garage sales and the like very cheaply. If you don't have the cash, do you have credit cards, or can your parents loan you some money? (They might be willing to loan you money to get you out of their house!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a7975f7b904e476239cf8f0dc1eb4de", "text": "\"If I buy property when the market is in a downtrend the property loses value, but I would lose money on rent anyway. So, as long I'm viewing the property as housing expense I would be ok. This is a bit too rough an analysis. It all depends on the numbers you plug in. Let's say you live in the Boston area, and you buy a house during a downtrend at $550k. Two years later, you need to sell it, and the best you can get is $480k. You are down $70k and you are also out two years' of property taxes, maintenance, insurance, mortgage interest maybe, etc. Say that's another $10k a year, so you are down $70k + $20k = $90k. It's probably more than that, but let's go with it... In those same two years, you could have been living in a fairly nice apartment for $2,000/mo. In that scenario, you are out $2k * 24 months = $48k--and that's it. It's a difference of $90k - $48k = $42k in two years. That's sizable. If I wanted to sell and upgrade to a larger property, the larger property would also be cheaper in the downtrend. Yes, the general rule is: if you have to spend your money on a purchase, it's best to buy when things are low, so you maximize your value. However, if the market is in an uptrend, selling the property would gain me more than what I paid, but larger houses would also have increased in price. But it may not scale. When you jump to a much larger (more expensive) house, you can think of it as buying 1.5 houses. That extra 0.5 of a house is a new purchase, and if you buy when prices are high (relative to other economic indicators, like salaries and rents), you are not doing as well as when you buy when they are low. Do both of these scenarios negate the pro/cons of buying in either market? I don't think so. I think, in general, buying \"\"more house\"\" (either going from an apartment to a house or from a small house to a bigger house) when housing is cheaper is favorable. Houses are goods like anything else, and when supply is high (after overproduction of them) and demand is low (during bad economic times), deals can be found relative to other times when the opposite applies, or during housing bubbles. The other point is, as with any trend, you only know the future of the trend...after it passes. You don't know if you are buying at anything close to the bottom of a trend, though you can certainly see it is lower than it once was. In terms of practical matters, if you are going to buy when it's up, you hope you sell when it's up, too. This graph of historical inflation-adjusted housing prices is helpful to that point: let me just say that if I bought in the latest boom, I sure hope I sold during that boom, too!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc0d3a45e406630a03ba30d9d4eac9d2", "text": "I am 10 years out of college and been debt free for 4. My school would have cost me $180k for 4 years. I was aware of the cost to go to the school I wanted and so I worked in highschool for every possible scholarship available. I then went into a degree program which I knew was a good investment, engineering. I came out of college in the middle of the recession with you guessed it, around $100k in debt. I moved to a place where the cost of living made it so I could get a job and save. I did not live a lavish lifestyle, I invested my money well, and I worked hard. Garbage in, garbage out. Go to a bad school, not worth it. Do not work hard in college, not worth it. Work hard in a major which has no economic value, not worth it. Do not set yourself up for success by working hard in high school, getting things like AP credits and scholarships, not worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f8bcf663f42ed5f126b1e447b84980", "text": "\"There are a lot of things that go into your credit score, but the following steps are core to building it: Now, in your case, you obviously have some flexibility in your monthly budget since you're considering paying down your college loan faster. You have to weigh whether it would be better to pay off the loan that much faster, or just save the money towards buying the car. If you can pile up enough cash to buy the car (and still leave yourself an emergency fund) it would be better to buy the car than add another interest payment. As other answers have noted, you don't want to get in a situation where you have no cash for \"\"unexpected events\"\". Some links of interest:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18dff473c799cb389d55803e69937458", "text": "It sounds as though you were able to purchase your properties through fortuitous circumstances. Not everyone is going to have spare cash lying around, especially considering [ 71% of US college grads have loan debt, averaging ~$30,000.](http://projectonstudentdebt.org/state_by_state-data.php)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a01424e83595065e20e56380b974ff5", "text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c153ea4b906a889e5d80fc7a3b0859f", "text": "Two years ago, I wrote an article titled Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question posed by a fellow blogger. The bottom line is that the loan payment doesn't lower your borrowing power as it fits in the slice between 28% (total housing cost) and 38% (total monthly debt burden) when applying for a loan. But, the $20K is 20% down on $100K worth of house. With median home prices in the US in the mid-high $100Ks, you're halfway there. In the end, it's not about finance, it's a question of how badly you want to buy a house. If I got along with the parents, I'd stay as long as I was welcome, and save every dollar I could. Save for retirement, save for as large a downpayment as you can, and after you buy the house, pay the student loan aggressively. I moved out the week after I graduated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e752763291a9e919e89b7865c2b2dc", "text": "\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "693722f1798694bccfe5812befd2db5d", "text": "That's exactly why they *should* have tightened faster. A recession now is more likely than it was in 2011-2012 and they can't drop rates of that happens because they never raised them. They're basically buying time before the debt catches up, but they're doing it with more debt so they're treating the immediate symptom and ignoring the long term disease.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd6d21819d04068e9eea9dada5e04ac5", "text": "The opening price is derived from new information received. It reflects the current state of the market. Opening Price Deviation (from Investopedia): Investor expectation can be changed by corporate announcements or other events that make the news. Corporations typically make news-worthy announcements that may have an effect on the stock price after the market closes. Large-scale natural disasters or man-made disasters such as wars or terrorist attacks that take place in the afterhours may have similar effects on stock prices. When this happens, some investors may attempt to either buy or sell securities during the afterhours. Not all orders are executed during after-hours trading. The lack of liquidity and the resulting wide spreads make market orders unattractive to traders in after-hours trading. This results in a large amount of limit or stop orders being placed at a price that is different from the prior day’s closing price. Consequently, when the market opens the next day, a substantial disparity in supply and demand causes the open to veer away from the prior day’s close in the direction that corresponds to the effect of the announcement, news or event.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7059a7d0bfe3ad4e22effcd4c6298c90", "text": "I have a few recommendations/comments: The trick here is to make it clear to the dealer that you will not be getting a new car from them and their only hope of making some money is to sell you your own car. You need to be prepared to walk away and follow through. DON'T buy a new car from them even if you end up turning it in! They could still come back a day later and offer a deal. Leasing a new car every 3 years is not the best use of money. You have to really, really like that new car feeling every three years and be willing to pay a premium for it. If you're a car nut (like me) and want to spend money on a luxury car, it's far wiser to purchase a slightly used luxury vehicle, keep it for 8+ years, and that way you won't have a car payment half the time!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4ee97c68281a1e2de37b6a52989a6a1", "text": "If you lease a car, you are paying for the depreciation of a certain number of miles, even if you don't actually use those miles. Since you know you will be well under the standard number of miles when your lease is up, and you already know that you want to keep the car, buying is better than leasing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e9b3afd041177df172055cd40cbd57b", "text": "Alternative: buy a recent-model used car in good condition. Or buy an older car in good condition. Let someone else pay the heavy depreciation that happens the moment you drive a new car off the dealer's lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a633681e25df3cae2e62691e152a14", "text": "Which to do is determined by how you like to consume cars. If you don't drive a lot and like to get a new car every 2-3 years, leasing is often the better choice. If you drive a lot or want to keep a car longer than 3 years, you're normally better buying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ce18a718c5c3163fe63f2a2e04f3a1", "text": "Leasing is not exactly a scam, but it doesn't seem to be the right product for you. The point of leasing over buying is that it turns the capital purchase of a car which needs to be depreciated for tax purposes into what is effectively a rental expense. Rent is an expense that can be deducted directly without depreciation. If you are not operating a business where you can take advantage of leasing's tax advantages, leasing is probably not for you. Because of the tax advantages, a lease can be more profitable for the car dealer. They can get a commission or finder's fee on the lease as well as the commission on the car sale. That extra profit comes from somewhere, presumably from you. If a business, you can then pass part of that to the government. As an individual, you lose that advantage. At this point, the best financial decision that you could make would be to buy out the lease on your current car. Lease prices are set based on the assumption that the car will have been abused during the course of the lease. If you are driving the car less than expected, its value is probably higher than the cost of buying out the lease. If you buy that car, you can drive it for years. Save up some money and buy your next car for cash rather than using financing. Of course, if you really want a new car and can afford it, you may not want to buy out the lease. That is of course your decision. You don't have to maximize your current financial position if buying a new car would return more satisfaction for the money in the long run. I would try to avoid financing for what is essentially a pleasure purchase though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f64b356af646c6d4ba154440a0d05462", "text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0fa119f4e2afee44fcb054afb94a81", "text": "\"Cars depreciate and lose value the second you drive off the lot. Why lose money? Foreign cars require too much maintenance. What will kill your wallet will be the maintenance on the car, not the payment. Think tires, oil changes, spark plug changes, transmission oil changes, filter changes, brake changes, cost of maintaining is the expensive part. Call the dealer speak to the servicing dept, and go to town. Ask away what all this costs. Basic stuff you expect to have, and find out what the cost of owning that car. Then ask yourself, \"\"should I buy it?\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dcf99768351a755e14a69fdb57a8ff5e", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94879e15d3965ff10dffe5aaac5ff8f4", "text": "Auto insurance is a highly personalized item, so depending on your driving record and other factors, $600 a month for full coverage may be as good as you can get. Look at the premium for each category, and consider raising the deductible if you have some savings that could be used in the event that you have a claim. Also, you're not only buying insurance to cover the other person's damage and medical expenses, you're paying for insurance for your car. Brand-new cars are more expensive to replace (and thus insure) than used cars. Leasing is effectively renting a car for a long period of time. While the payments are less, when the lease expires you're going to have to decide whether to give up the car or buying it, usually at a price much higher than market value. I'm glad you discovered that the insurance would break your budget before it's too late. My suggestion would be to look for a 1-2 year old car that's less expensive to buy and to insure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46f295dd712175146f902bb3afbad09b", "text": "\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \"\"Reasonable\"\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad1ae30cbee62489664b6f08356add4e", "text": "I must say, I can't completely agree with the tone of most of these answers. I think there may be a good reason to buy a new car, or a luxurious used car. For years I drove old, second hand cars that were really cheap. and unreliable. I can't count the number of times I was left stranded because my car didn't start, or the alternator burned out. I could have bought more recent models, but I was trying to save money. But in 2010 I found a very low mileage 2008 Smart Car for small money. It was a good deal at the time. It was almost new, having very low mileage, and about 60% of the price of a new, less well appointed Smart. I found out that I really like driving cars that won't break down and leave me stranded in sleet or ice storms. When my wife's Mazda hatchback finally rusted to the point that it wouldn't pass the safety inspection and couldn't be repaired, we bought a new 2013 Toyota Rav4. We are really happy with it. It's probably not a luxury car to you, but having reliable heat and air conditioning seems like luxury to us, and we are happy with our decision. I get the Smart serviced at the Mercedes shop. They have very nice coffee and pastries, and very fast free wifi.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d17b29c137d112b63e73934182b900c", "text": "\"There are two reasons leases are generally a worse deal than buying. First, inherent in the lease is the concept of trading in the car at the end of the lease term. As we all know, cars depreciate the most in the first year or two. By repeatedly leasing cars on short time frames, you own the vehicles during those most expensive years. Of course there's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing when buying (be it via cash or loan), but leasing builds in a schedule and encourages you to stick to it. Second, it is easier for the dealer salesperson to hide things from the consumer in a lease contract. Most salespeople will try to get a car purchaser to focus on the monthly payment, or they'll four-box the purchaser, but even then there's only 4 numbers, and most consumers have a rough idea what they are and what they mean. But in a lease the numbers in question are renamed and obscured. \"\"Price\"\" becomes \"\"capitalized cost\"\". \"\"Interest rate\"\" becomes \"\"money factor\"\" and is divided by 2400, making it look really small and not easily translatable without a calculator or pencil and paper. \"\"Down payment\"\" becomes a capitalized cost reduction. There's a new concept \"\"residual value.\"\" Neither of those reasons change when interest rate is lower.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "464cbae1aff1457fc0fc804fb43863e4", "text": "I have coworker who reported that he leased a Nissan Leaf from 2013-2016 and was offered $4000 off the contracted purchase price at the end of the lease due to a glut of other lessees turning in for a lease on the newest model with greater range. It's not clear that this experience will be repeated by others three years from now, but there is enough uncertainty in the future electric car market that it's quite possible to have faster depreciation on a new vehicle than you might otherwise expect based on experience with conventional internal combustion powered vehicles. Leasing will remove that uncertainty. Purchasing a lease-return can also offer great value. I looked at the price for a lease return + a new battery with the extended range, and it was still significantly cheaper than buying a completely new vehicle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed2a440591aaa7a4df75c0943e7628ae", "text": "I'd approach the lender that you're getting the lease from, but be prepared for them either saying 'no' to putting the lease into the name of an LLC without any proven track record (because it hasn't been around for a while) or require you to sign a personal guarantee, which partially defeats the purpose of putting the car lease into the LLC. I'd also talk to an accountant to see if you can't just charge the business the mileage on your vehicle as that might be the simplest solution, especially if the lender gets stroppy. Of course the mileage rate might not cover the expense for the lease as that one is designed to cover the steepest part of the depreciation curve. Does your LLC generate the revenue needed so it can take on the lease in the first place? If it's a new business you might not need or want the drain on your finances that a lease can be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac870f795fa816cd1f34ff8b7abe5c10", "text": "Buying this car would be a good idea because you will quickly learn why you feel you need a BMW (that you cannot afford). This is not an investment, but a financing decision, beyond your means of living. As a future MBA you will regret not investing this money now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a126eabc0702abd8448d4555f3a2125b", "text": "I tend to agree with Rocky's answer. However it sounds like you want to look at this from the numbers side of things. So let's consider some numbers: I'm assuming you have the money to buy the new car available as cash in hand, and that if you don't buy the car, you'll invest it reasonably. So if you buy the new car today, you're $17K out of pocket. Let's look at some scenarios and compare. Assuming: If you buy the new car today, then after 1 year you'll have: If you keep the old car, after 1 year you get: After 2 years, you have: And after 3 years, you're at: Or in other words, nothing depletes the value of your assets faster than buying the new car. After 1 year, you've essentially lost $5K to depreciation. However, over the short term the immediate cost of the tires combined with the continued depreciation of the old car do reduce your purchasing power somewhat (you won't be able to muster $25K towards a new car without chipping in a bit of extra cash), and inflation will tend to drive the cost of the new car up as time goes on. So the relative gap between the value of your assets and the cost of the new car tends to increase, though it stays well below the $5k that you lose to depreciation if you buy the new car immediately. Which is something that you could potentially spin to support whichever side you prefer, I suppose. Though note that I've made some fairly pessimistic assumptions. In particular, the current U.S. inflation rate is under 1%, and a new car may depreciate by as much as 25% in the first year while older cars may depreciate by less than the 8% assumed. And I selected the cheapest new car price cited, and didn't credit the tires with adding any value to your old car. Each of those aspects tends to make continuing to drive the older car a better option than buying the new one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a46c54bd1e04b5785a720314fd5d6f80", "text": "Not really. You just pay the other side of payroll taxes your employer typically pays. That's 7.65% more on your net. Not that much, all things considered. Plus, on part time Uber driving, the depreciation deduction on a car should exceed true depreciation costs. Putting 10K more miles on a car each year does not result in that much extra depreciation. 2010 Honda Civic DX Sedan 4D with 100K miles is worth $4,500 in Good condition, according to KBB. With 130K miles, it's worth $3,900. That's a difference of $600, or $0.02 per mile. You'll have more oil changes, brake replacements, gas, and other operating costs. But depreciation is small potatoes compared to the $0.535 in deductions per mile. Edit: If you would own a car regardless of whether or not you drive for Uber, Uber isn't a bad deal. It's a bad deal if you have to buy a car just to drive for Uber. It's all about the marginal cost of a mile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a53d039df4a55a0bd546570e4d0f657b", "text": "\"A lease is a rental plain and simple. You borrow money to finance the expected depreciation over the course of the lease term. This arrangement will almost always cost more over time of your \"\"ownership.\"\" That does not mean that a lease is always a worse \"\"deal.\"\" Cars are almost always a losing proposition; save for the oddball Porsche or Ferrari that is too scarce relative to demand. You accept ownership of a car and it starts to lose value. New cars lose value faster than used cars. Typically, if you were to purchase the car, then sell it after 3 years, the total cost over those three years will work out to less total money than the equivalent 36 month lease. But, you will have to come up with a lot more money down, or a higher monthly payment, and/or sell the car after 36 months (assuming the pretty standard 36 month lease). With this in mind, some cars lease better than others because the projected depreciation is more favorable than other brands or models. Personally, I bought a slightly used car certified pre-owned with a agreeable factory warranty extension. My next car I may lease. Late model cars are getting so unbelievably expensive to maintain that more and more I feel like a long term rental has merit. Just understand that for the convenience, for the freeing up of your cash flow, for the unlikelihood of maintenance, to not bother with resale or trading the car in, a lease will cost a premium over a purchase over the same time frame.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17fa3df27d1ee72e8c155bbaccef568d", "text": "\"Just to argue the other side, 1.49% is pretty low for a loan. Let's say you have the $15k cash but decide to get the car loan at 1.49%. Then you take the rest of the money and invest it in something that pays a ~4% dividend (a utility stock, etc.). You're making money on the difference. Of course, there's no guarantee that the underlying stock won't drop in value, but it might go up, too. And you'll likely pay income tax on the dividends. Still, you have a good chance of making money by taking the loan. So I will argue that there are scenarios where taking advantage of a low interest rate loan can be \"\"good\"\" as an investment opportunity when the risk/reward is acceptable. Be careful, though. There's nothing wrong with paying cash for a car!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819a29260e55e72603e797d859ed1996", "text": "If you are talking straight dollars then leasing is always a losing proposition when compared with purchasing. The financial workings of leasing are so confusing that people don’t realize that leasing invariably costs more than an equivalent loan. And even if they did, the extra cost is difficult to calculate. Still, many people can’t afford the higher payments of a typical loan, at least not without putting a substantial amount down. If payments are an issue, consider buying a lower-cost vehicle or a reliable used car. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/12/buying-vs-leasing-basics/index.htm If you are talking about convenience, lifestyle, ability to purchase a car you could not pay for outright, then you will have to evaluate that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09c321175805a970c8bb8b63efec14cf", "text": "You're looking at a used car, which is good, but I think you can still be much wiser with the type of car you're looking to purchase. Maybe I'm such a fuddy-duddy because I didn't own a car until I was 25, but let's break this down with a small comparison: If you drive 1,000 miles per month with gas at $4/gallon -- which is absurdly conservative, I think -- for five years, then you're looking at an extra $60/month for just gas, and probably twice the payment, compared with a perfectly reliable but more fuel-efficient car from the same year. (Disclosure: I own a 2004 Corolla and love it. I got mine in 2007 for under $10k, and I paid cash.) $300/month or so is a good chunk of change, no? I'd do even more, and pay that loan off (which will almost certainly be less than $500/month) faster by throwing $500/month at it. You'll save hundreds of dollars in interest. Edit based on your additions: There's one thing that you don't see yet that I have. It's only because you're in your early 20s and I'm pushing 40. It is far easier to sock money away when you're single and don't have a family to take care of. (I'm assuming you're not married yet and that you don't have kids. Hopefully it's not a poor assumption.) I would be saving like crazy now if I were in your position. You have a great job for fresh out of college. My first job started ten years ago after grad school at the same salary you're making. Man, it was so easy to save money back then. Now that I'm married with a daughter, a lot of that cushion goes away. I wouldn't trade it for the world, but that's the price of being head of household. If you have any intentions of not being a hermit for the rest of your life (and I hope you do) then you'd be wise to save as much as you can now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c747aeb77488d875c013bbd62f26cef", "text": "\"As others have already pointed out, there is no monetary sensible reason to borrow at 5% cost to invest at 1% return. However, just because it doesn't make perfect sense financially doesn't mean it can't make sense for peace of mind. And you should not dismiss the peace of mind argument out of hand. Ignoring tax effects, credit score effects, cost of higher levels of insurance required, etc., and assuming a five year repayment plan, borrowing $15,000 at 5% will cost you about $283/month for a total cost of $16,980. 1% interest on the same $15,000 would give you about $12/month. In other words, your \"\"loan premium\"\" is $21/month (interest expense about $33/month on the car loan, reduced by interest earned $12/month on the retained savings) plus the capital repayment amount. If you were to take the money out of savings you would probably want to replenish that over a similar time period (ignoring interest, saving $15,000 in five years means $250/month), so this boils down to the $21/month interest premium. Now consider that the times when an emergency fund is most often needed are very often the times when banks will be reluctant to extend a loan (a job loss being a common example). While foreclosing on an existing loan can still happen, as long as you keep making payments, I suspect that most banks are far more willing to overlook the fact that you would not have qualified for the loan after the job loss. If a loss of income situation develops after you pay the car with your savings without a loan, you start out with $15,000 in the bank plus whatever \"\"car payments to yourself\"\" you have been able to save afterwards. Depending on when things turn bad for you, this could mean that you having only half of the savings that you used to, but of course you also have no car payment expense (which is the same as you do now). If a loss of income situation develops while you are still paying off the car, you start out with $30,000 in the bank instead of $15,000, but run the risk of having to make the car payments with money out of your savings. The net result of that is that your savings are potentially effectively reduced by whatever the remaining debt outstanding on the car is, which in turn is reduced over time. Even if you were not to actively save, your net financial situation becomes better over time. If a loss of income situation develops after you have paid off the car, you now own the car free and clear and still have $30,000 in the bank. Assuming that you would repay yourself on a schedule similar to that of a car loan if you took the $15,000 out of the bank instead, this is a very similar situation. Consequently, the important consideration becomes: Is it worth it to you to pay $21/month extra to have an extra $15,000 on hand if something happens to your financial situation? I have been in pretty much exactly the same situation, albeit with smaller amounts, and determined that having the cash on hand was worth the small additional interest expense, not the least of which because I was able to secure a loan at a pretty good interest rate and with no early repayment penalties. You may reach a different conclusion, and that's okay. But do consider it.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "18397334430909aee08a750b1b380c31", "text": "Puerto Rico: Last I checked, the Puerto Rico banking system wasn't materially different than working within the US - though some Continental US banks exclude US Territories like Guam and Puerto Rico or charge more when dealing with them. I'm not certain as to why. However, most banks don't see them any differently than a regular US bank. Regarding Wire Transfers (WT): $35 for an ad-hoc WT within the US and Puerto Rico is for the most part average. Wires cost money for the convenience of quick clearing and guaranteed funds. If you have a business/commercial account where you are doing this regularly and paying a monthly fee for a WT service, $10 - $15 each may be expected. I had a business account with US Bank where I paid $15 a month for a WT transfer service and reoccurring template (always went to the same account - AMEX in this case) and the transfers were only $15 each. But, a WT as a general rule, especially when it's only a once a month thing from a personal account, will cost around $25 - $35 in the US and Puerto Rico. As others have said, you can simply mail a personal check just as you would in the US. Many people choose to use Money Orders for Puerto Rico as they can be cashed at the post office (I believe there is an amount limit though). ACH: If you want even easier, I would use ACH. Banks in Puerto Rico use this ACH (Automatic Clearing House) system as we do in the Continental US. It will take a little longer than WT, but as you said - this is fine. Not all US Banks offer free ACH, but a number of them do. Last I checked, Citibank and USAA where among them. Banks like, BAC charges a small fee. Much smaller than a WT! This post may be useful to you: What's the difference between wire transfer and ACH?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6bc9f64574af2062c1c3525e86aac0e1", "text": "Typically your statement will break down each of the balances that carry a different rate, so you'll see them lumped into the 0% line, or two separates lines with different rates for each. If you don't see it on the statement, a quick call to your bank should clarify it for you. If I had to guess, I would lean towards the fee likely being at 0% also, but if it isn't, typically you would pay the minimum + $350 on your next statement. (Because only amounts over the minimum go towards principal of the highest rates first, at least this is true in the US for personal accounts.) Of course this is something your bank should be able to clarify as well. Balance Transfer Tip: I always recommend setting up automatic payments when you take advantage of a balance transfer offer. The reason is, oftentimes buried deeply in the terms and conditions, is an evil phrase which says that if you miss a payment, they have the right to revoke the promotional rate and start charging you a higher rate. That would be bad enough if it happened, but to make things worse I believe the fee you paid for the transfer is not returned to you. So, set up an auto payment each month for at least the minimum payment. And if you can afford it, divide the total transferred by the number of months and pay that amount each month. (Assuming you don't pay interest on the fee: $17,500 * 1.02 / 18 = $991.67/per month.) That way you'll have it paid off just in time to not have any higher interest when the promotional rate expires. If you don't know if you can afford the higher amount each month, set it to the max you know for sure you can afford, and make additional payments whenever you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88c461ef9c397b80086de1ac45b49a68", "text": "I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, but in general its pretty simple: She goes to the UK bank and requests a wire transfer, providing your details as a recipient. You then go to your bank, fill the necessary forms for the money-laundaring regulations, you probably also need to pay the taxes on the money to the IRS, and then you have it. If you have 1 million dollars (or is it pounds?), I'm sure you can afford spending several hundreds for a tax attorney to make sure your liabilities are reduced to minimum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45b38491d157c18dffa4205923def3d9", "text": "I may be moving to Switzerland soon and would like to know if there's a similar system to move money between a Swiss bank account and a U.S bank account. There is no easy way. The most common method is International Wire or SWIFT. These kinds of transfer are generally charged in the range of USD 20 to USD 50 per transfer. It generally takes 2 to 5 days to move the money. Some Banks have not yet given the facility to initiate a International Wire from Internet banking platforms. One has to physically walk-in. So if this is going to be frequent, make sure both your banks offer this. As the volume between US and Switzerland is less, there may not be any dedicated remittance service providers [these are generally low cost].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc60c2be7f14a3235c87dbae4b1b69fd", "text": "Transferwise gives an excellent exchange rate and very minimal costs. They save on costs by not actually changing any money; your money goes to someone else in the US, and the Canadia dollars you want come from someone else in Canada. No money changes currency or crosses borders, there is no bank transfer fee (assuming that domestic bank transfers, inside the country, are free), and they give an excellent exchange rate (very nearly the spot rate, I find; far better than many rates I find online for sending money across the border). I sent money from the UK to Japan with it last week, at a fixed fee of about three US dollars (I was charged in GBP, obviously). About one tenth the cost of an international bank transfer. I just double-checked; at about midday on the fifth of October 2016, they gave me a rate of 130.15 JPY per 1 GBP, and then charged me two GBP to transfer the money. The rate that day, according to xe.com, varied between 130.7 and 132 ; basically, I don't think I could have got a better deal pretty much anywhere. As I type, this very second, they offer 1.33 CAD for 1 USD , and google tells me that this very second, the exchange rate is 1.33 CAD for 1 USD - transferwise is giving the spot price. I don't think you'll get a better rate anywhere else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7851f4eb8431440619c6ffb3774188f0", "text": "\"As soon as I see the word \"\"friends\"\" along with money transfer I think scam. But ignoring that red flag.... You will have American companies reporting to the IRS that you are a Canadian Vendor they have hired. Then you are transferring money to people in Bangladesh. Assuming also that you fill out all the regulatory paperwork to establish this Money transfer business you may still face annual reporting requirements to 3 national taxing authorities. In the United states there are situations where the US Government hires a large company to complete a project. As part of that contract they require the large company to hire small businesses to complete some of the tasks. In a situation where the large company is imply serving as a conduit for the money between the government and the sub-contractor; and the large company has no other responsibilities; the usual fee for providing that function is 8% of the funds. This pays for their expenses for their accounting functions plus profit and the taxes that will trigger. Yet you said \"\"At the end of the day, I will not earn much, but the transactions will just burden my tax returns.\"\" The 8 percent fee doesn't include doesn't include having to file paperwork with 3 nations. Adding this to all the other risks associated with being an international bank, plus the legal costs of making sure you are following all the regulations...No thanks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e", "text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d87e11efcd1821a28428fdb83e5d531", "text": "Most US banks allow to initiate wire transfers online. (I do it regularly with BoA and JPMorgan-Chase) Once you have your account details in Germany, you log on to your US account, set it up, and initiate the transfer; that should go through within one day. The exchange ratio is better than anything you would get buying/selling currency (paper cash money), no matter where you do it. Chase takes a fee of 40$ per online transaction; BoA 45$. The receiving bank might or might not take additional fees, they should be lower though (I have experienced between 0€ and 0.35%). Therefore, it is a good idea to bundle your transfers into one, if you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08248f5214e8b3782b0d58a4351d7af1", "text": "He cannot get money from someone else account. Your US resident friend in New York can send money to your Indian friend in Atlanta via Western Union which has presence in almost every corner of the US. Most definitely in the city of Atlanta. Your Indian friend can receive the Western Union transfer, in cash, within minutes after the friend in New York sends it. Here's the site for location search. The sender doesn't need to go anywhere, can send online, so your New York friend doesn't even need to waste much time. In fact - you don't need to bother your friend in New York, you can send it online yourself (assuming you're American/have US bank account). In order to receive the money, your Indian friend will obviously need a proper identification (i.e.: passport).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f", "text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1105d0dfbec07b6b30ea37e35393157", "text": "HSBC exchange spread between HKD and USD was 483 bps (1 bps is 0.0001) on their 24 hours exchange network a few weeks ago when I checked. It is very high for a pair of linked currencies which has very little fluctuation. One should expect less than 5 bps or even 1 bps. I did my currency conversion at a US brokerage which can take HKD currency and then I was able to pick the time/rate and amount I like to make the conversion. Basically, the currency pair runs within a tight band and you just need to buy USD with HKD at the time when it is near the edge of the band to your advantage. There is usually no fee on currency conversion. They make money through the spread. HSBC premier allows you to wire free among countries. I forget whether they offer tighter spread or not. Rob was right on about the cost of transferring money overseas. The majority of the cost is in the conversion, not the wiring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746", "text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c9acdcbf56c5fe87270584861c27edb", "text": "After collecting information via web searching, the comments above, and a additional call to BOA, i have concluded the following to the best of my knowledge. Zelle Transfers are final. Irreversible. As Jay mentioned above, funds are subtracted from the sending account before the transfer is made, therefore it eliminates sending funds that do not exist. I validated this information with BOA, and the BOA representative said that once a zelle transfer is initiated and the receiving party has received the funds, it can no longer be canceled. Funds received by the receiving party is credited immediately. I will note that the BOA representative was a BOA representative and not a Zelle representative. I say this because the representatives seemed to be slightly weary in answering my questions about Zelle, as if he was looking up the information as we spoke. If someone is reading this and plans to transfer huge amount of cash from a highly likely malicious user, i would recommend contacting Zelle or your personal bank directly to further validate this information. Zelle, from what i can find, is a fairly new technology. I could not find a Zelle contact number via the web for questioning, so i can only rely on the knowledge on my BOA representative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "536ea8d6b0e4f7dd151fac547fee08e0", "text": "TL;DR for those who don't want to waste their time: Uber didn't do anything special. Also, you should follow unethical laws and not try to change or challenge the system. While I was reading the piece I thought it was the work of a sophomore, but it turns out this was written by a professor.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c5e7a3c91496ce03aa1164a95e9039fc", "text": "There are a couple of reasons that a person might choose to use insurance even if they could handle the financial loss if something went wrong. They know their risk better than the insurance company. While it might seem odd at first glance that an individual can be better at assessing risk than a large company with thousands of actuaries. There are limits to the amount of knowledge that an insurance company can have or use to price their insurance products. For instance if you were a very aggressive driver but didn't have any recent tickets or accidents because you were in college and didn't have a car on a regular basis, but now you have a job and drive 30 miles to work every day. You know your risk is relatively high but the insurance company sees you as relatively low risk and aren't able to price that extra risk into your premium. Just because a person can survive financial after losing something like a car or a house doesn't mean it isn't desirable to pay a small price to mitigate that risk. If you are using your savings to pay for an emergency then that money needs to be semi liquid in case you need it limiting your investment options. Where as if you purchase insurance you pay a small amount of money to be able to invest the rest of your money. Liquidity is a big deal particularly if you are a small business and investing into your business where your money can make your more money but you may or may not be able to access that money very easily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0559c1e632f653f0a26df0e3ab9f4c5e", "text": "\"For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up \"\"comprehensive\"\" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance. People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d047c32af2e68df91707cccae2fdf08", "text": "Your basic point is correct; the savvy move is to use insurance only to cover losses that would be painful or catastrophic for you. Otherwise, self-insure. In the specific example of car insurance, you may be missing that it doesn't only cover replacement of the car, it also covers liability, which is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars risk. The liability coverage may well be legally required; it may also be required as a base layer if you want to get a separate umbrella policy up to millions in liability. So you have to be very rich before this insurance stops making sense. In the US at least you can certainly buy car insurance that doesn't cover loss of the car, or that has a high deductible. And in fact, if you can afford to self-insure up to a high deductible, on average as you say that should be a good idea. Same is true of most kinds of insurance, a high deductible is best as long as you can afford it, unless you know you'll probably file a claim. (Health insurance in particular is weird in many ways, and one is that you often can estimate whether you'll have claims.) On our auto policy, the liability and uninsured motorist coverage is about 60% of the cost while damage to the car coverage is 40%. I'm sure this varies a lot depending on the value of your cars and how much you drive and driving record, etc. On an aging car the coverage for the car itself should get cheaper and cheaper since the car is worth less, while liability coverage would not necessarily get cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9f4ef1abee813f390cd3e929b76af95", "text": "\"All investors have ultimately the same investment goal: maximize returns while limiting risk to an acceptable level. Of course we would love to maximize returns while minimizing risk, but in most cases if you want higher returns you must be willing to accept higher levels of risk. We must keep in mind that investors are humans, not computers. As such not everybody is willing to accept the same level of risk. Insurance is simply a way to \"\"buy down\"\" risk. Yes, it reduces our overall gains (most of the time), but so do bonds vs stocks (most of the time). And yet who among us doesn't have bonds in our portfolio? Insurance is yet another way to balance risk and return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d2c32bdc72dc63989dd12ffe277ec6f", "text": "Insurance isn't a product designed to protect against financial loss. The product is designed to allow people to pay a small fee (the premium) for peace of mind. This allows the insured to feel as if their purchase was worthy (they see the potential of loss as a concern and the premiums small enough to allow them to not worry about having a loss). Insurance companies will then seek out insurable risks where the perceived losses far out weight the actual losses (risk assessment). So, you answer is that your friends are paying for peace of mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f60dae4742b7b4fd2c06b84dc792b557", "text": "Insurance is a funny product. As you said, it is a little like gambling. When I buy term life insurance, I'm essentially betting that I'm going to die within the next 20 years, and the insurance company is betting that I'm not. I'm hoping to lose that bet! Besides all of the reasons that other answers mentioned, I think part of the reason is psychological. As in my example, I'm setting up a kind of a win-win situation for myself here. Let's go with car insurance, a less-morbid example than my first example. If I don't get into a car accident, great! If I do get into a car accident, then the traumatic event is at least offset by the fact that the financial impact to me is minimal. Win-win.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "310791d9ac43bf6dfa29b6a6bbfa79aa", "text": "Ignoring that liability car insurance is usually a state mandated requirement and that all banks require full coverage, there are quite a few reasons to buy it. No matter how much money you have, you can't really guarantee that you can recover financially from an accident. Yes, you can buy a new car. But what happens if you are sued because the other driver died or is now in a long term coma? The legal costs alone would financially bury most people. It's even worse if you are rich. Let's say someone rear ended you. If you had no insurance (again ignoring the legality here), you can bet their attorney would take a look at your considerable financial assets and do whatever it took to get as much of that as possible. The legal fees alone of defending yourself at trial would likely far outstrip everything else. And that's just one little situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cece7085b75d2a0b1af793420237c36a", "text": "In addition to stoj's two good points I'll add a couple more reasons: 3) In some situations there are secondary factors involved that can make it a good deal. These normally amount to cases where you can buy the insurance with pre-tax dollars but would have to pay the bills with post-tax dollars. 4) Insurance companies know much better what things should cost and often have negotiated rates. A rich person would generally be well-served to have health insurance for this very reason.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca1a00a58d46726efd352f668f67a73", "text": "\"You're making the assumption that a person would be aware, in advance, that they'd have enough resources to pay the costs of anything that might happen. Second, you're assuming the cost of insurance would outweigh what the person would have to pay out of pocket if they didn't have insurance. In other words as an example, if the insurance premiums on my car are so high that it would be cheaper for me to replace it myself in cash then it might make sense, but how likely is that to be the case? There's a gambling adage that I think applies here - \"\"Always bet with the house's money\"\". Why would I put my own money on the line in the event of some event rather than pay for an insurance policy that takes care of it for me? That way, my costs are predictable and manageable - I pay the premiums and perhaps a deductible, and that's it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3d2c4612e9c333baba7cd0129c3fa46", "text": "This person could buy another car at any moment without any money problems, so I don't really see any point in insuring, especially with such a ridiculously high price compared to the extremely low risk. Convenience. If you self-insure, then an accident means that you have to make arrangements to get the car towed, fixed, evaluated, etc. If you buy insurance, your insurer would prefer to do all that. They argue with the mechanic over prices, the lawyer over liability, etc. And of course, rich people need more liability insurance than other people, not less. So part of that $1400 is probably money that your friend would have to pay regardless.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e48a26da3c0a0c63bdae93575ef5466c", "text": "You only need umbrella policy for large amounts of liability protection (I think they usually start with $1M). So if you don't have and don't expect to have assets at such a high value - why would you need the insurance? Your homeowners/renters/car/travel insurance should be enough, and you still need to have those for umbrella since its on top of the existing coverage, not instead. Many people just don't have enough assets to justify such a high coverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dd8641f0761fc8c05b8578d0a237cb8", "text": "You could slip and fall in the shower tonight. Or you might never need it. Insurance is a hedge against risk. If the event has already occurred, you're uninsurable. If you and others would suffer if you have a bad accident and can't work, get it now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b3fafaa967083f6341aed5116b52e70", "text": "There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8c18e08c9bce38d5731ba6c59f07bc", "text": "\"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e986d00b1b65c89f70aea126b6dfa7a3", "text": "\"You are kind of thinking of this correctly, but you will and should pay for insurance at some point. What I mean by that is that, although the insurance company is making a profit, that removing the risk for certain incidents from your life, you are still receiving a lot of value. Things that inflict large losses in your life tend to be good insurance buys. Health, liability, long term care, long term disability and property insurance typically fall into this category. In your case, assuming you are young and healthy, it would be a poor choice to drop the major medical health insurance. There is a small chance you will get very sick in the next 10 years or so and require the use of this insurance. A much smaller chance than what is represented by the premium. But if you do get very sick, and don't have insurance, it will probably wipe you out financially. The devastation could last the rest of your life. You are paying to mitigate that possibility. And as you said, it's pretty low cost. While you seem to be really good at numbers it is hard to quantify the risk avoidance. But it must be considered in your analysis. Also along those lines is car insurance. While you may not be willing to pay for \"\"full coverage\"\" it's a great idea to max out your personal liability if you have sufficient assets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c9e00ce04a383d57acbd2b60aa935eb", "text": "Do you have a clue of what would of happened to you if you had some serious condition and at some point you lost your job? Insurers would deny you insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and you would be left out to dry. Now maybe you aren't as unfortunate as having a serious health condition, but no new bill will make everything better for everyone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90e5c075808444b3079a84d19def23ea", "text": "\"There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is \"\"average\"\". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That \"\"pain\"\" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5bf96d7c983c8dce32b8a34bba14280", "text": "\"There are 2 maxims that help make sense of insurance: Following those 2 rules, \"\"normal\"\" insurance makes sense. Can't afford to replace your car? insure it. Can afford to lose your TV? Don't insure it. People with a net worth in the low millions have very similar insurance needs to the middle class. For example, they might be able to afford a new car when they total it, but they probably can't afford to pay for the long term care of the person they accidentally ran over. Similarly, they probably need to insure their million dollar house, just like average people insure more affordable housing. \"\"Very wealthy\"\" people still have the same basic choices, but for different assets. If you are a billionaire, then you might not bother to insure your $30k childhood home or your fleet vehicles, but you probably would insure your $250m mansion, your $100m yacht and your more pricey collectible cars. It's also worth noting that \"\"very wealthy\"\" people are at much higher risk of being sued for negligence or personal injury. As such, they are more likely to purchase personal liability or umbrella insurance coverage to protect against such risks. Multi-million-dollar personal injury suits would never be filed against a poorer person simply because they couldn't afford to pay even the plaintiff's lawyer fees when they lost the court case. Insurance also makes sense when the insurance company is likely to (grossly) underestimate the risk they are taking. For example, if I am a really bad driver, but i have a clean record thanks to my army of lawyers, then insurance might actually be a good deal for me even on average. To take the \"\"very wealthy\"\" stereotypes to the extreme, perhaps my eccentric billionaire neighbor and I are in an escalating feud which I think will result in my butler \"\"accidentally\"\" running his car into my neighbor's precious 1961 Ferrari.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ef404d9575a94a56820d4f80a9f2864", "text": "\"Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you. Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken). The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance. Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900) Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same. Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair). Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850) Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower. The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value. That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds \"\"unfair\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1913ec64a4d2a98e9c9970f4e2773f84", "text": "Most people buy insurance because it is legally required to own a car or to have a mortgage. People want to own homes and to have personal transportation enough that they are willing to pay for required insurance costs. There are a lot of great explanations here as to why insurance is important and I don't want to detract from those at all. However, if we're being honest, most people are not sophisticated enough to measure and hedge their various financial risks. They just want to own an home and to drive a car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96c320793de662b8549c60cee3880fe7", "text": "Simply put, it makes sense from the moment you can afford the loss without negative consequences. For example, if your car costs $20000 and you happen to have another $20000 laying around, you can choose not to insure your car against damage. In the worst case, you can simply buy a new one. However, not insuring your car has a hidden cost: you can't long-term invest that money anymore. If your insurance costs $500 a year, and you can invest those $20000 with a return on investment of more than 2.5%, it still makes sense to invest that money while having your car insured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa80e2066fab165e86db3de8af6d86ac", "text": "Does such insurance make any sense or is it just wasting money for passengers? As with most insurance, it depends. If you just look at the probability of a payout, the cost of the insurance, and the payout amount, then statistically it will always be better to avoid buying insurance. This is because there is a certain amount of overhead in an insurance company, like the commissions and salaries you mentioned. The goal when buying insurance should be to avoid a cost that you cannot afford or is inconvenient to be able to afford. For example, if your family would be devastated financially by your death then it would make sense for you to buy some sort of life insurance. Whether or not this particular insurance makes sense for you depends on your financial situation and risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8177505fb3f012694faa2ced7ad40d4d", "text": "\"There are a few questions that need qualification, and a bit on the understanding of what is being 'purchased'. There are two axioms that require re-iteraton, Death, and Taxes. Now, The First is eventually inevitable, as most people will eventually die. It depends what is happening now, that determines what will happen tomorrow, and the concept of certainty. The Second Is a pay as you go plan. If you are contemplating what will heppen tomorrow, you have to look at what types of \"\"Insurance\"\" are available, and why they were invented in the first place. The High seas can be a rough travelling ground, and Not every shipment of goods and passengers arrived on time, and one piece. This was the origin of \"\"insurance\"\", when speculators would gamble on the safe arrival of a ship laden with goods, at the destination, and for this they received a 'cut' on the value of the goods shipped. Thus the concept of 'Underwriting', and the VALUE associated with the cargo, and the method of transport. Based on an example gallion of good repair and a well seasoned Captain and crew, a lower rate of 'insurance' was deemed needed, prior to shipment, than some other 'rating agency - or underwriter'. Now, I bring this up, because, it depends on the Underwriter that you choose as to the payout, and the associated Guarantee of Funds, that you will receive if you happen to need to 'collect' on the 'Insurance Contract'. In the case of 'Death Benefit' insurance, You will never see the benefit, at the end, however, while the policy is in force (The Term), it IS an Asset, that would be considered in any 'Estate Planning' exercise. First, you have to consider, your Occupation, and the incidence of death due to occupational hazards. Generally this is considered in your employment negotiations, and is either reflected in the salary, or if it is a state sponsored Employer funded, it is determined by your occupational risk, and assessed to the employer, and forms part of the 'Cost-of-doing-business', in that this component or 'Occupational Insurance' is covered by that program. The problem, is 'disability' and what is deemed the same by the experience of the particular 'Underwriter', in your location. For Death Benefits, Where there is an Accident, for Motor Vehicle Accidents (and 50,000 People in the US die annually) these are covered by Motor Vehicle Policy contracts, and vary from State to State. Check the Registrar of State Insurance Co's for your state to see who are the market leaders and the claim /payout ratios, compared to insurance in force. Depending on the particular, 'Underwiriter' there may be significant differences, and different results in premium, depending on your employer. (Warren Buffet did not Invest in GEICO, because of his benevolence to those who purchase Insurance Policies with GEICO). The original Poster mentions some paramaters such as Age, Smoking, and other 'Risk factors'.... , but does not mention the 'Soft Factors' that are not mentioned. They are, 'Risk Factors' such, as Incidence of Murder, in the region you live, the Zip Code, you live at, and the endeavours that you enjoy when you are not in your occupation. From the Time you get up in the morning, till the time you fall asleep (And then some), you are 'AT Risk' , not from a event standpoint, but from a 'Fianancial risk' standpoint. This is the reason that all of the insurance contracts, stipulate exclusions, and limits on when they will pay out. This is what is meant by the 'Soft Risk Factors', and need to be ascertained. IF you are in an occupation that has a limited exposure to getting killed 'on the job', then you will be paying a lower premium, than someone who has a high risk occupation. IT used to be that 'SkySkraper Iron Workers', had a high incidence of injury and death , but over the last 50 years, this has changed. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics lists these 10 jobs as the highest for death (per 100,000 workers). The scales tilt the other way for these occupations: (In Canada, the Cheapest Rate for Occupational Insurance is Lawyer, and Politician) So, for the rest in Sales, management etc, the national average is 3 to 3.5 depending on the region, of deaths per 100,000 employed in that occupation. So, for a 30 year old bank worker, the premium is more like a 'forced savings plan', in the sense that you are paying towards something in the future. The 'Risk of Payout' in Less than 6 months is slim. For a Logging Worker or Fisher(Men&Women) , the risk is very high that they might not return from that voyage for fish and seafood. If you partake in 'Extreme Sports' or similar risk factors, then consider getting 'Whole Term- Life' , where the premium is spread out over your working lifetime, and once you hit retirement (55 or 65) then the occupational risk is less, and the plan will payout at the age of 65, if you make it that far, and you get a partial benefit. IF you have a 'Pension Plan', then that also needs to be factored in, and be part of a compreshensive thinking on where you want to be 5 years from today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20b60c94ce607e27ad139ace6b216c42", "text": "\"The definition of insurance is the transfer of risk. Thus, you're paying for transferring of a risk (of an item/property) to the insurer (carrier), so that they bear the financial burden of a loss/accident and not you. You could always self-insure, but a lot of times, insurance is cheaper, since due to the \"\"Law of Large Numbers\"\" the insurer can just charge a premium that is small percentage in comparison to the cost of self-insuring.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be2cae6c13606d7d4653c326d5ad553d", "text": "If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1c5f25b99fe4db218184e2bb4bccbc8c", "text": "\"Unrealistic assumption, but I'll play along. Ultimately, dividends would exist because some innovative shareholder of some company, at some time, would desire income from their investment and could propose the idea of sharing the profit. Like-minded investors also desiring income could vote for dividends to come into existence — or, rather, vote for a board of directors that supports enactment of the idea. (In your fictitious world, shareholders do still control the corporation, right?) In this world, though, dividends wouldn't be called \"\"dividends\"\", a terrible name that's too \"\"mathy\"\" for the inhabitants of that world. Rather, they would institute a quarterly or annual shareholder profit share. Governments would enact legislation to approve of—nay, encourage such an innovation because it becomes a new source of recurring income they can tax. Alternatively, even if the idea of a cash dividend didn't occur to anybody in that world, investors would realize the stock price is depressed and could propose and vote for the board to institute share buybacks. The company repurchasing some portion of shares periodically would provide income to shareholders participating in the buyback. If the buyback were oversubscribed, they could structure it fairly (pro-rata participation, etc.) Alternatively, shareholders would pressure the board (or fire them and vote in a new board) to put the company up for sale and find a larger buyer, who would purchase the shares for cash. This can't scale forever, though, so the pressure will increase for solutions like #1 and #2.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7a74283b5d312d5d5b84245bf4dc5e0", "text": "\"In the unlikely case that noone finds a way to extract resources from the company and distribute them to shareholders periodically in a way that's de facto equivalent to dividends, any company can be dissolved. The assets of the company would be sold for their market value, the liabilities would have to be settled, and the net result of all this (company cash + sale results - liabilities) would be distributed to shareholders proportionally to their shares. The 'liquidation value' is generally lower than the market value of a company as an ongoing concern that's making business and earning profit, but it does put a floor on it's value - if the stock price is too low, someone can buy enough stock to get control of the company, vote to dissolve it, and make a profit that way; and the mere fact that this can happen props up the stock price. Companies could even be created for a limited time period in the first hand (which has some historical precedent with shareholders of 'trading companies' with lifetime of a single trade voyage). Imagine that there is some company Megacorp2015 where shareholders want to receive $1M of its cash as \"\"dividends\"\". They can make appropriate contracts that will form a new company called Megacorp2016 that will take over all the ongoing business and assets except $1M in cash, and then liquidate Megacorp2015 and distribute it's assets (shares of Megacorp2016 and the \"\"dividend\"\") among themselves. The main difference from normal dividends is that in this process, you need cooperation from any lenders involved, so if the company has some long-term debts then they would need agreement from those banks in order to pay out \"\"dividends\"\". Oh, and everyone would have to pay a bunch more to lawyers simply to do \"\"dividends\"\" in this or some other convoluted way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8c0df79874e1a7f888fd3b4029697e3", "text": "As a thought experiment I suppose we can ask where dividends came from and what would be different if they never existed. The VOC or Dutch East India Companywas the first to IPO, sell shares and also have a dividend. There had been trade entrepot before the VOC, the bulk cog (type of sea-going ship) trade in the Hanseatic League, but the VOC innovation was to pool capital to build giant spice freighters - more expensive than a merchant partnership could likely finance (and stand to lose at sea) on their own but more efficient than the cogs and focused on a trade good with more value. The Dutch Republic became rich by this capital formed to pursue high value trade. Without dividends this wouldn't have been an innovation in seventeenth century Europe and enterprises would be only as large as say the contemporary merchant family networks of Venice could finance. So there could be large partnerships, family businesses and debt financed ventures but no corporations as such.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c7b7bc49b3a18d2c21e9f2ddc23d02c", "text": "A share of stock is a small fraction of the ownership of the company. If you expect the company to eventually be of interest to someone who wants to engineer a merger or takeover, it's worth whatever someone is willing to pay to help make that happen or keep it from happening. Which means it will almost always track the company's value to some degree, because the company itself will buy back shares when it can if they get too cheap, to protect itself from takeover. It may also start paying dividends at a later date. You may also value being able to vote on the company's actions. Including whether it should offer a dividend or reinvest that money in the company. Basically, you would want to own that share -- or not -- for the same reasons you would want to own a piece of that business. Because that's exactly what it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "354b30beb9a55fa25cc1a12b002fd1ca", "text": "This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8a6ab2ad605b9d03ed7f3dd7d905f179", "text": "In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571", "text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346", "text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34cde1e8bd12eb8855f66997fb014b0c", "text": "Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c22c52e4aaebff770a0c2e1acd89cf3", "text": "\"A share of stock is a share of the underlying business. If one believes the underlying business will grow in value, then one would expect the stock price to increase commensurately. Participants in the stock market, in theory, assign value based on some combination of factors like capital assets, cash on hand, revenue, cash flow, profits, dividends paid, and a bunch of other things, including \"\"intangibles\"\" like customer loyalty. A dividend stream may be more important to one investor than another. But, essentially, non-dividend paying companies (and, thus, their shares) are expected by their owners to become more valuable over time, at which point they may be sold for a profit. EDIT TO ADD: Let's take an extremely simple example of company valuation: book value, or the sum of assets (capital, cash, etc) and liabilities (debt, etc). Suppose our company has a book value of $1M today, and has 1 million shares outstanding, and so each share is priced at $1. Now, suppose the company, over the next year, puts another $1M in the bank through its profitable operation. Now, the book value is $2/share. Suppose further that the stock price did not go up, so the market capitalization is still $1M, but the underlying asset is worth $2M. Some extremely rational market participant should then immediately use his $1M to buy up all the shares of the company for $1M and sell the underlying assets for their $2M value, for an instant profit of 100%. But this rarely happens, because the existing shareholders are also rational, can read the balance sheet, and refuse to sell their shares unless they get something a lot closer to $2--likely even more if they expect the company to keep getting bigger. In reality, the valuation of shares is obviously much more complicated, but this is the essence of it. This is how one makes money from growth (as opposed to income) stocks. You are correct that you get no income stream while you hold the asset. But you do get money from selling, eventually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bd14724d83214a490d517282be12cd3", "text": "I'm fairly convinced there is no difference whatsoever between dividend payment and capital appreciation. It only makes financial sense for the stock price to be decreased by the dividend payment so over the course of any specified time interval, without the dividend the stock price would have been that much higher were the dividends not paid. Total return is equal. I think this is like so many things in finance that seem different but actually aren't. If a stock does not pay a dividend, you can synthetically create a dividend by periodically selling shares. Doing this would incur periodic trade commissions, however. That does seem like a loss to the investor. For this reason, I do see some real benefit to a dividend. I'd rather get a check in the mail than I would have to pay a trade commission, which would offset a percentage of the dividend. Does anybody know if there are other hidden fees associated with dividend payments that might offset the trade commissions? One thought I had was fees to the company to establish and maintain a dividend-payment program. Are there significant administrative fees, banking fees, etc. to the company that materially decrease its value? Even if this were the case, I don't know how I'd detect or measure it because there's such a loose association between many corporate financials (e.g. cash on hand) and stock price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa2039cbfb91620e8f945061e12ad2b", "text": "Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share. You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b", "text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b20ae0b7a53427e84f1435189b93ec3", "text": "Nobody is going to buy a stock without returns. However, returns are dividends + capital gains. So long as there is enough of the latter it doesn't matter if there is none of the former. Consider: Berkshire Hathaway--Warren Buffet's company. It has never paid dividends. It just keeps going up because Warren Buffet makes the money grow. I would expect the price to crash if it ever paid dividends--that would be an indication that Warren Buffet couldn't find anything good to do with the money and thus an indication that the growth was going to stop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23cee925ddbb4a7e32c9671b6bf45718", "text": "It depends. If you accept the offer, then your stock will cease existing. If you reject the offer, then you will become a minority shareholder. Depending on the circumstances, you could be in the case where it becomes illegal to trade your shares. That can happen if the firm ceases to be a public company. In that case, you would discount the cash flows of future dividends to determine worth because there would be no market for it. If the firm remained public and also was listed for trading, then you could sell your shares although the terms and conditions in the market would depend on how the controlling firm managed the original firm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f202937ec26c18b06aa1ba3356b006ad", "text": "Yes, somebody could buy the shares, receive the dividend, and then sell the shares back. However, the price he would get when he sells the shares back is, ignoring other reasons for the price to change, exactly the amount he paid minus the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca1c1d902376642b2036114196a52f8", "text": "Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee000eda9fda8d9a922a0c33865f3118", "text": "There can be the question of what objective do you have for buying the stock. If you want an income stream, then high yield stocks may be a way to get dividends without having additional transactions to sell shares while others may want capital appreciation and are willing to go without dividends to get this. You do realize that both Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline are companies that the total stock value is over $100 billion yes? Thus, neither is what I'd see as a growth stock as these are giant companies that would require rather large sales to drive earnings growth though it may be interesting to see what kind of growth is expected for these companies. In looking at current dividends, one is paying 3% and the other 5% so I'm not sure either would be what I'd see as high yield. REITs would be more likely to have high dividends given their structure if you want something to research a bit more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7", "text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55765f7687c9396197d73e17d5c30658", "text": "Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cd8e2442cc976c93958606e280d1aa37", "text": "\"The catch with any exchange service is that you're going to involve some sort of business and they're going to want to get paid for their service. These services all come with their own exchange rates, fees, waiting periods, or requirements to even use said service. Commonly, pros towards one of those comes at the cost of another— e.g. fast transfers have higher fees or worse exchange rates. Over the past few months I needed a service and ended up using USForex. Since you're going from CAD to USD, you'd likely need to use CanadianForex. Pros: Cons: Overall, this option was far better than the $97.00 I was quoted from WesternUnion; or the $25.00-45.00 I was quoted from BMO Harris, which would have required I open a saving account with them. I wasn't provided a clean exchange rate between these two to know how all three compared. The only bit of advice I can say with any service is compare exchange rates. If you're transferring more than a few hundred dollars, the exchange rate can be seen as a \"\"hidden\"\" fee when it's unreasonably low. I'm not affiliated with or accommodated by any of the exchange services mentioned.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6b3106db1d97e80a5130ab69402ab6bd", "text": "There are many options to send money internationally. You can send it through PayPal (assuming that both you and your friend have a PayPal account). You can also send it through money services such as Western Union (assuming you can both get to a WU location). Or, you can use popular apps such as Venmo for sending money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280", "text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "defacdad2fe54876438533f538acc0a1", "text": "You could find a relative in another country who has the ability to receive PayPal, and have them transfer the money to you via Western Union or Hawala.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "658753afb2ce69e32d23b16aa02a4b7e", "text": "If I understand TransferWise’s Supported Countries page correctly, you could use their service. I believe it should be cheaper than having the bank convert. I've been very happy with the service and use it regularly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d11cb4a3b0931a5b400b4622e812ebf8", "text": "I am not aware of a version of Interac available in the U.S., but there are alternative ways to receive money: Cheque. The problem with mailed cheques is that they take time to deliver, and time to clear. If you ship your wares before the cheque has cleared and the cheque is bad, you're out the merchandise. COD. How this works is you place a COD charge on your item at the post office in the amount you charge the customer. The post office delivers the package on the other end when the customer pays. The post office pays you at the time you send the package. There is a fee for this, talk to your local post office or visit the Canada Post website. Money order. Have your U.S. customers send an International Money Order, not a Domestic Money Order. Domestic money orders can only be cashed at a U.S. post office. The problem here is again delivery time, and verifying your customer sent an International Money Order. It can be a pain to have to send back a Domestic Money Order to a customer explaining what they have to do to pay you, even more painful if you don't catch the error before shipping your wares. Credit Card. There are a number of companies offering credit card processing that are much cheaper than a bank. PayPal, Square, and Intuit are three such companies offering these services. After I did my investigations I found Square to be the best deal for me. Please do your own research on these companies (and banks!) and find out which one makes the most sense for you. Some transaction companies may forbid the processing of payment for e-cig materials as they my be classed as tobacco.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2afdb7895ff858324e1611105b470a98", "text": "\"Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP. Let me explain the biases which make it so. US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks. To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires. Outside of determined \"\"off the grid\"\" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system. Who's not a criminal, anyway. We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into \"\"sanitized\"\" cash on deposit in a bank. The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that. A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it. If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation. Deposit it there. Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash. (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs. Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2a52a96bc2cc98117b5ae5ccf55134", "text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "800c5783f99b60b8c046861416bb28c6", "text": "If you trust the other party, an international bank wire would be the quickest, easiest, and cheapest option. It is the standard way to pay for something overseas from the United States. Unfortunately, in most cases, they are not reversible. I don't believe Paypal is an option for an amount that large. Escrow companies do exist, but you would have to research those on a case by case basis to see if any fit the criteria for your transaction and the countries involved. I'll also add: If it were me, and there was no way to get references or verify the person's identity and intent to my satisfaction, then I would probably consider hopping on a plane. For that amount of money, I would verify the person and items are legitimate, in person, and then wire the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6f319e0659b1791e965d38d59ef35fe", "text": "You would probably be better off wiring the money from your US account to your French account. That IMHO is the cheapest and safest way. It doesn't matter much which bank to use, as it will go through the same route of SWIFT transfer, just choose the banks with the lowest fees on both sides, shop around a little.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1853626fb52451da253d4584c6a00fad", "text": "\"I sent myself an Tangerine email money transfer. They sent me an email which took me to a website. After I entered the secret answer, they asked me for the destination bank account's details. They asked me to enter the transit number once, the institution number once, and the account number twice. They also showed a bold warning message: \"\"Please ensure that the details of your Canadian Bank Account (account number and bank information) are entered correctly.\"\" Asking for the account number twice isn't a perfect safeguard, but it's better than nothing. In some countries, bank account numbers include a \"\"check digit\"\" for typo prevention, but I was unable to find any evidence online that this is true in Canada. Tangerine's system isn't 100% mistake-proof, but it's good enough that I think I'm going to use it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f", "text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79eabf0ae820460afcb4fd80cb9bcae9", "text": "Essentially you can send a Check by mail, you brother deposits into Bank account. It costs very little, the time required would be around 1-2 months. You can do International Wire [Via SWIFT] it would reach in few days, fees are high. You can use specialized remittance services like Money2india, remit2india, or western union etc. The fees are low and generally funds reach in a week.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f678d63d1dfbbadafbbe7c07f7fca21", "text": "You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27", "text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "202023489078ad72c57b4565606684c3", "text": "\"Interesting as I am in the exact same situations as yourself. I, in fact, just incorporated. You will be able \"\"save\"\" more in taxes in the end. The reason I put \"\"save\"\" in quotes, is that you don't necessarily save on taxes, but you can defer taxes. The driving factor behind this is that you specify your own fiscal calendar/year. Incorporating allows you to defer income for up to 6 months. Meaning that if you make your fiscal year starting in August or September, for example, you can claim that income on the following year (August + 6 months = February). It allows you to keep the current year taxes down. Also, any income left over at year end, is taxed at 15% (the Corporation rate) rather than the 30-40% personal rate you get with a sole-proprietorship. In a nutshell, with sole-proprietorship, all income is taxable (after write-offs)... in a corporation, you can take some of that income and keep it in the corporation (gives your company a \"\"value\"\"), and is only taxed at 15% - big saving there. I primarily work with US businesses. I am, however, a dual-citizen, US and Canadian, which allowed me as a sole-proprietor, to easily work with US companies. However, as a sole-proprietor or a Corporation, you simply need to get an EIN from the IRS and any US company will report earnings to that number, with no deductions. At year end, it is your responsibility to file the necessary tax forms and pay the necessary taxes to both countries. Therefore you can solicit new US business if you choose, but this is not restricted to corporations. The real benefit in incorporating is what I mentioned above. My suggestion to you is to speak with you CA, who can outline all benefits. Revenue Canada's website had some good information on this topic as well. Please let me know if you need anything else explained.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7370a33a0e00e3ab8b244ef51854982a", "text": "\"I know this is a little late but here is my answer. No. You do not \"\"need\"\" to incorporate. In fact, incorporating in your situation will cost you in legal fees, administrative headaches, and a fair bit in taxes. The CRA would probably look at your corporation as a personal services corporation and it would not be allowed to claim a number of tax reductions. The tax rate would end up being over the top range (unless you are in Quebec where it would be just under the top marginal range).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d402dc885d5d6ef6afda8b49de969880", "text": "You're doing business in the US and derive income from the US, so I'd say that yes, you should file a non-resident tax return in the US. And in Connecticut, as well, since that's where you're conducting business (via your domestic LLC registered there). Since you paid more than $600 to your contractor, you're probably also supposed to send a 1099 to him on that account on behalf of your LLC (which is you, essentially, if you're the only member).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0b77539fde6780785caa9c608426fb", "text": "The benefits and taxes thing, in my opinion is the biggie. Most people don't realize that the cost to the company for a full-time employee with benefits can be 2x or even 3x the amount they see in their paycheck. Health plans are extremely expensive. Even if you are having money taken from your check for health insurance, it is often just a fraction of the total cost, and the employer is subsidizing the rest. More expensive benefits that contractors don't typically get are 401K matches and paid vacation days. When contractors call in sick or don't work because it is a national holiday, they don't get paid for that day. Also, see that line on your paycheck deducting for Social security and Medicare? That is only half of the tax. The employer pays an equal amount that is not shown on that statement. Also, they pay taxes that go towards unemployment benefits , and may be required to pay higher taxes if they churn through a lot of full-time employees. You can usually let contractors go with relative impunity . For the unemployment tax reasons, not paying for people's days off or benefits, a lot less paperwork, and less risk to the business associated with committing to full-time employees all provide value to the company. Thus companies are willing to pay more because they are getting more. Think of it like a cell phone-contract. If you commit to a three year contract it can be a pain/expensive to get out of the deal early, but you will probably get a better rate in exchange for the risk being shifted to your end of the deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d5db709426ecd7f9d7fbe0d9e7ed547", "text": "They believe that it reduces the risk that Revenue Canada will deem you to be an employee and make them pay a whole pile of tax, EI, CPP and so on that should have been paid if you had been hired as an employee. It's my recollection that the employer gets dinged for both the employee and employer share of those withholdings (and generally the employer's share is larger than yours) so they really want to prevent it. There's a Revenue Canada publication about whether you're an employee or not. There's nothing on it about being incorporated, but still employers feel more protected when their contracts are incorporated. We did work as a sole proprietorship at the very beginning, so that we could deduct our losses against employment income earned earlier in the year, before we started the business. You can find clients who will take you on. We incorporated once the losses were over with (basically we had bought the equipment and office supplies we needed to get started.) It's a simple and relatively inexpensive thing to do, and gives clients a sense of protection. It won't protect you from your own poor decisions since you'll be a director of the firm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd06f09541ff85e29fb9bb2fa1596e7", "text": "This sounds very like disguised employment. You act like an employee of the company, but your official relationship with them is as a contractor. You gain none of the protection you get from being an employee, and this may make you cheaper, less risky and more desirable for the company who is hiring you. Depending on your country you may also pay corporation tax rather than income tax, which may represent a very significant saving. Also, the company hiring you may not have to pay PAYE, national insurance, stakeholder pension, etc. This arrangement is normal and legal providing you genuinely are acting as a subcontractor. However if you are behaving as an employee (desk at the company, company email, have to work specific hours in a specific location, no ability to subcontract, etc.) you may be classified as a disguised employee. In the UK it used to be common practice for highly paid employees to set up shell companies to avoid tax. This will now get you into hot water. Google IR35 It sounds like your relationship in this case is directly with the recruiter. You will have to consider if the recruiter is acting as your employer, or if you remain a genuinely independent agent. The duration of your contract with the recruiter will have a bearing on this. In the UK there are a whole series of tests for disguised employment. This is a good arrangement provided you go in with your eyes open and an awareness of the legislation. However you should absolutely check the rules that apply in your country before entering into this agreement. You could potentially be stung very badly indeed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c8de141bcd410796ff629067dd17e8", "text": "\"First, point: The CRA wants you to start a business with a \"\"Reasonable expectation of profit\"\". They typically expect to see a profit within 5 years, so you may be inviting unwanted questions from future auditors by using a breakeven strategy. Second point: If the goal is to pay as little tax as possible, you may want to consider having the corporation pay you as little as possible. Corporate income taxes are much lower than personal income taxes, according to these two CRA links: How it works is that your company pays you little as an outright salary and offers you perks like a leased company car, expense account for lunch and entertainment, a mobile phone, computer, etc. The company owns all of this stuff and lets you use it as part of the job. The company pays for all this stuff with corporate pre-tax dollars as opposed to you paying for it with personal after-tax dollars. There are specifics on meals & entertainment which modify this slightly (you can claim 50%) but you get the idea. The actual rate difference will depend on your province of residence and your corporate income level. There is also a requirement for \"\"Reasonable Expenses\"\", such that the expenses have to be in line with what you are doing. If you need to travel to a conference each year, that would be a reasonable expense. Adding your family and making it a vacation for everyone would not. You can claim such expenses as a sole proprietor or a corporation. The sole-proprietorship option puts any after-expense profits into your pocket as taxable income, where the corporate structure allows the corporation to hold funds and limit the amount paid out to you. I've seen this strategy successfully done first-hand, but have not done it myself. I am not a lawyer or accountant, consult these professionals about this tax strategy before taking any action.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a6c8b85bac2aa40c815d4671c636b1d", "text": "Another thing to consider, however, is the deductibility of business expenses. Let's assume that the employer can legitimately hire you as a 1099 contractor. (Would you be able to telecommute? Would you have a high degree of control over when you worked and when you didn't? These factors also affect whether you're a true independent 1099 contractor or not.) As a legit 1099 contractor, you're able to deduct certain business expenses directly from your income. (You can find a list of the rules at irs.gov.) As a W2 employee, by contrast, can deduct only business expenses that exceed 2% of the your AGI (adjusted gross income). So, you also have to consider your personal circumstances in making the calculus and comparing whether a legitimate 1099 contractor job is or is not good for you. It's not just a comparison of what they'd pay W2 employees versus what they'd pay 1099 contractors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27043c26b7dc545bbb03381812a8595", "text": "As per the Canada-U.S. Tax Treaty (the “Treaty”), a U.S. corporation carrying on business in Canada is only subject to taxation on income earned in Canada through a fixed place of business or permanent establishment. Therefore, if a U.S. company does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in Canada then their Canadian source business income is not subject to Canadian federal tax. https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/USA_-eng.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bf683f73eaca9db5871c953efed4ff7", "text": "\"This is an answer grounded in reality, not advice. Most states have no means of enforcing their foreign business entity registration statutes. Some states never even codified consequences. (California is a notable exception.). Some states have 'business licenses' that you need in order to defend your entity in court, but will retroactively apply the corporate veil when you get the license. The \"\"do I have to register\"\" question is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut. But this doesn't absolve you of looking in the mirror (doing your research). Registration and INCOME taxes are different stories. If a state calls their fee a franchise tax and it is applicable and there are real consequences for not, then you will have to pay that tax. Anyway, this isn't advocating breaking the law, but since it describes ignoring toothless state-chartered agencies, then there are people that will disagree with this post, despite being in line with business climate in the United States. Hope that helps\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37feddb6cb3a7bb862d4267ba2ae404f", "text": "I'm not missing the point. Canada will still charge you/a corporation income taxes on worldwide income so long as you are resident in Canada. If you are incorporated in Canada but resident elsewhere, you are only subject to tax on Canadian-sourced income. In the US, where you are incorporated is the method of determining liability. Why is one method of determining jurisdiction correct and not the other? If you are a corporation residing in Canada, you still pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income, even if that income is sourced in another country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ea55b8b623ba0c931af98338036e0b", "text": "\"In the United States, with an S-Corp, you pay yourself a salary from company earnings. That portion is taxed at an individual rate. The rest of the company earnings are taxed as a corporation, which often have great tax benefits. If you are making over $80K/year, the difference can be substantial. A con is that there is more paperwork and you have to create a \"\"board\"\" of advisors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9b1750861a184a70777dda66fa97951", "text": "\"Be careful here: If ACME were in California, I would pay taxes on USD 17,000 because I had revenue of 20,000 and expenses of 3,000. To CALIFORNIA. And California taxes S-Corps. And, in addition, you'd pay $800 for the right of doing business in the State. All that in addition to the regular Federal and State taxes to the State where you're resident. Suppose that ACME is in Britain (or anywhere else for that matter). My revenue and expenses are the same, but now my money has been earned and my expenses incurred in a foreign country. Same thing exactly. Except that you'll have to pay taxes to the UK. There may be some provision in the tax treaty to help you though, so you may end up paying less taxes when working in the UK than in California. Check with a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) who won't run away from you after you say the words \"\"Tax Treaty\"\". Does it even make sense to use my S-Corporation to do business in a foreign country? That should be a business decision, don't let the tax considerations drive your business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c8ad670321acaed5751ea3172021336", "text": "I'll just re-post my comment as an answer as i disagree with Michael Pryor. According to this article (and few others) you may save money by incorporating. These factors don’t change the general payroll tax advantage of an S corporation, however: A S corporation can often save business owners substantial amounts of payroll tax if the business profit greatly exceeds what the business needs to pay owners for their work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f732bdd6254aa7f83b1bfdb31ddc9704", "text": "*Disclaimer: I am a tax accountant , but I am not your professional accountant or advocate (unless you have been in my office and signed a contract). This communication is not intended as tax advice, and no tax accountant / client relationship results. *Please consult your own tax accountant for tax advise.** A foreign citizen may form a limited liability company. In contrast, all profit distributions (called dividends) made by a C corporation are subject to double taxation. (Under US tax law, a nonresident alien may own shares in a C corporation, but may not own any shares in an S corporation.) For this reason, many foreign citizens form a limited liability company (LLC) instead of a C corporation A foreign citizen may be a corporate officer and/or director, but may not work/take part in any business decisions in the United States or receive a salary or compensation for services provided in the United States unless the foreign citizen has a work permit (either a green card or a special visa) issued by the United States. Basically, you should be looking at benefiting only from dividends/pass-through income but not salaries or compensations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef325af95e1dfafaa8396f9a31045429", "text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3*(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2977444346bc6bafa9b6942e71be2609", "text": "\"Due to the issues in the Eurozone, many foreign investors were buying Swiss Francs as a hedge against a Euro devaluation. They were in effect treating the Franc like gold, silver or some other commodity with perceived intrinsic value. This causes huge problems from the Swiss, as the value of the Franc increased and their exports became more expensive for foreigners to purchase. Things were getting bad enough that the Swiss in some places were travelling to Germany to buy groceries! To enforce this \"\"fixing\"\" of the Franc, the Swiss Central Bank announced that they would buy foreign currency in unlimited quantities by printing Francs. In reality, just announcing that they were going to do this was sufficient to discourage foreign investors from loading up on Francs. NPR's Planet Money did a really good job covering this topic:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a01dfe65090fa6172f2f2c6f31f3b3d4", "text": "\"As the European crisis worsened the Swiss Franc (CHF) was seen as a safe currency so Europeans attempted to exchange their Euros for Francs. This caused the Franc to appreciate in value, against the Euro, through the summer and fall of 2011. The Swiss government and Swiss Central Bank (SNB) believe mercantilism will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland. The Swiss central planners believe that having an abundance of export businesses in Switzerland will create wealth for the citizens of Switzerland as the exporters sell their good and services abroad and pocket a bunch of cash. Thus, the central planners tend to favor exporters. From the article: At the start of the year, when exporters urged for government and SNB action, ... The Swiss Central bank continued to intervene in currency markets in 2011 to prevent the CHF from appreciating. This was done to prevent a decrease in export business. Finally after many failed attempts they announced the 1.20 peg in September. The central planners give little consideration to imports, however, since manufacturers in foreign countries don't vote or contribute to the campaign funds of the central planners in Switzerland. As the CHF strengthened many imported items became very cheap for Swiss citizens. This was of little concern to the central planners. Currencies are like other goods in a market in that they respond to supply and demand. Their value can change daily or even hourly based on the continually varying demands of people. This can cause the exchange rate to rise and fall against other currencies and goods. Central planners mistakenly believe that the price of certain market items (like currency) should not fluctuate. The believe there is some magical number that will cause the market to operate \"\"better\"\" or \"\"more correctly\"\". How does the SNB maintain the peg? They maintain the peg by printing Francs and purchasing euros.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3336d6fc35d673959c37b0dcb67d246c", "text": "It's not. If you look at the page you link to and change dates, it's clear the rate changes a bit. 120.15 120.1 per hundred. The Swiss can keep the 1.200 as a target and if it's higher, sell agingst the euro to bring it down, if lower, buy. If the swiss experienced a serious financial crisis and their currency fell, they may not have the power to control it, if the rest of the world said it was worth less, you can be sure it will fall.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f18f3c5e4610ab3f40cdc8e509be5c33", "text": "\"Bank for International Settlements (BIS) are the guys in Switzerland that came up with the Basel accords and gave us fun things like Capital Adequacy Ratios and kept bankers constipated for the last decade. It seems According to them, the bankers have been up to no good again and have been engaging in bank to bank currency swaps and derivative swaps in a manner that has allowed them to by pass regulatory safe guards and hide the debt off balance sheet, and a situation is occurring where they have to pay back their debt before the debt that is owed to them matures and that could lead to a credit crunch and liquidity crisis. The trigger they feel for this could be a rise in inflation in the US which would lead to the Fed raising rates or an unforeseen shock to the dollar that would tighten the market. \"\"Signs of excess are visible everywhere. “Corporate debt is now considerably higher than it was pre-crisis. Leverage indicators have reached levels reminiscent of those that prevailed during previous corporate credit booms. A growing share of firms face interest expenses exceeding earnings before interest and taxes,” said the report. Up shit creek and its in danger of popping\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "411a0d4eb5c817cf575e82c2ed0d5c25", "text": "It seems possible if the Euro is partially/entirely unwound that policies could be enacted to prohibit exactly this behavior, otherwise what will stop outflow to the stronger countries on a massive scale? (Thus amplifying the resulting decade-long clusterfuck) We've never had this situation in Europe before, and already for Greece and Spain there are suggestions to instigate withdrawal controls. It doesn't seem far fetched to imagine retroactive controls placed on private deposits in newly-foreign-currency banks. If I were concerned about the Euro's collapse I'd be more inclined to move assets out of the eurozone entirely", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e83d0a17d6016f0a1252a86909c2d29e", "text": "\"Well there are a couple reasons that people from various countries use specific currencies: 1. Government courts will recognize the settlement of contracts if they are paid with their local currency. So even if you wanted to be paid in Swiss Francs, your contracting partner can choose to pay you in USD instead. This artificially inflates the value of the local currency by increasing demand for it. 2. You're only allowed to pay your taxes in the local currency. This also artificially increases the demand for it, and it's the \"\"root value\"\" of the currency - people clamor for bits of green paper because if they don't have enough of it to pay off the tax man, they'll go to jail.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a197c559e154cf6363be0698879082be", "text": "\"As a Venezuelan who used to buy USD, I believe there is not better explanation than the one given to someone who actually lives and works here in Venezuela. Back in 1998 when Hugo Chavez took the presidency, we had a good economy. Fast forward 10 years laters and you could see how poor management, corruption and communist measurements had wreaked havoc in our Economy. It was because most of the money (USD) coming in Venezuela were not invested here but instead, given away to \"\"pimp countries\"\" like Cuba. Remember, communism lasts while you have money. Back then we had an Oil Barrel going over 100$ and crazy amounts of money were coming in the country. However, little to no money was invested in the country itself. That is why some of the richest people with bank account in Swiss are Venezuelans who stole huge amounts of Oil Money. I know this is a lot to take in, but all of this led to Venezuelan economy being the worst in The American Continent and because there is not enough money inside the country to satisfy the inner market, people would pay overprice to have anything that is bought abroad. You have to consider that only a very small amount of people can actually buy USD here in Venezuela. Back in 2013 I was doing it, I could buy about 80 usd/month with my monthly income. However, nowdays that's nearly impossible for about 99% of Venezuelans. To Illustrate. Minimum wage = 10.000 bolivares / month Black market exchange rate (As of January 2016) = 900bs per 1usd 10.000/900 = 11,11 usd. <<< that is what about 50% of Venezuelans earn every month. That's why this happens: http://i.imgur.com/dPOC2e3.jpg The guy is holding a huge stack of money of the highest Venezuelan note, which he got from exchanging only 100 usd. I am a computer science engineer, the monthly income for someone like me is about 30.000 bolivares --- so that is about 34$ a month. oh dear! So finally, answering your question Q: Why do people buy USD even at this unfavorable rate? A: There are many reasons but being the main 2 the following 1.- Inflation in Venezuela is crazy high. The inflation from 2014-2015 was 241%. Which means that having The Venezuelan currency (Bolivares) in your bank account makes no sense... in two weeks you won't be able to buy half of the things you used to with the same amount of money. 2.- A huge amount of Venezuelans dream with living abroad (me included) why, you ask? well sir, it is certain that life in this country is not the best: I hope you can understand better why people in 3rd world countries and crappy economies buy USD even at an unfavorable rate. The last question was: Q: Why would Venezuela want to block the sale of dollars? A: Centralized currency management is an Economic Measure that should last 6 months tops. (This was Argentina's case in 2013) but at this point, reverting that would take quite a few years. However, Turukawa's wikipedia link explains that very well. Regards.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1efb7090aedbe05bd825078862807e9", "text": "It's not necessary to convert it back for the changes to affect value. Lets say you have a euro account with 1000 euro and a gbp account with 920 gbp (the accounts are equal in value given current exchange rates). You could exchange either account for ~$1180 usd. If you exchange the euro account for USD, and say the euro gets stronger against the pound and dollar (and subsequently the pound and dollar are weaker against the euro); then if you would've kept the 1000 euro it would now be worth more than 920 gbp and more than 1180 usd, and you would've been better off exchanging the gbp account for usd. Barring some cataclysmic economic event; exchange rates between well established currencies don't radically change over a few weeks trip, so I wouldn't really worry about it one way or the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8fb271efafbf0a477901f22bb9c94d3", "text": "\"The answer from littleadv perfectly explains that the mere exchange ratio doesn't say anything. Still it might be worth adding why some currencies are \"\"weak\"\" and some \"\"strong\"\". Here's the reason: To buy goods of a certain country, you have to exchange your money for currency of that country, especially when you want to buy treasuries of stocks from that country. So, if you feel that, for example, Japanese stocks are going to pick up soon, you will exchange dollars for yen so you can buy Japanese stocks. By the laws of supply and demand, this drives up the price. In contrast, if investors lose faith in a country and withdraw their funds, they will seek their luck elsewhere and thus they increase the supply of that currency. This happened most dramatically in recent time with the Icelandic Krona.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d91a22f26eca67e948746de9b9fc394", "text": "You might want to see this question and its answers. If it was me, I'd prefer to exchange the currency in Germany. Why? When you are in the US you will be on vacation. It does not seem fun to spend vacation time in a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883cafa8f5663e43e4c96d54317ed88f", "text": "Banks in certain countries are offering such facility. However I am not aware of any Bank in Hungary offering this. So apart from maintaining a higher amount in HUF, there by reducing the costs [and taking the volatility risks]; there aren't many options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e6e5b8d781282d4e55d3ec17f65a88c", "text": "As others said, Greece cannot set.monetary policy because that is the job of the ECB. If you meant fiscal policy, then you are right: their high levels of debt plus their default this year make it so that they cannot unilaterally borrow more money to run a deficit as the private market will not lend to them. This makes them dependent on a bailout.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff17969f7fe94d417aea463bb9a3d9e", "text": "Certainly. My old professor of international relations used to say that if we wanted to understand complex issues, what we really needed to do was try to follow the lines of national interest. Here it seems like the Germans are acting against the national interest of the entire rest of the Eurozone, only for their narrow short-term interest. Its disgusting!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04570ba774855f975b423ad53c6b78a0", "text": "Yes, they need expansionary monetary policy to help them with their internal devaluation. However, this involves leaving the euro. So there are additional costs to the normal costs of inflation, they are experiencing some of these costs right now as capital is fleeing the country and it will get worse if/when they really leave. It's also worth keeping in mind that Greece doesn't have very good institutions (it's why they are in this mess in the first place), so it's hard to say that they'll be able to leave the euro and devalue without also trying out policies that will lead to hyperinflation. Internal devaluation is possible without expansionary monetary policy, but it takes some time and the capital flight in anticipation of taxes/neo-drachmas means that meanwhile there is also little investment in the economy in the meantime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54be78b2e13dda55e7fb0871c1cc7b76", "text": "\"How Italians have a general mistrust in the euro and the ECB makes me crazy. The country with over 2000 billion in debt, that got its ass saved by quantitative easing done by the European Central Bank (iirc, 46% of bonds bought were of the Italian debt). No politicians says he wants to reduce the debt, no, the problem is again something \"\"outside\"\". How about reforming Italian banks and their infamous credits they're still not writing off as losses because of politics? How about reducing the debt? How each and everyone who has a bank account in Italy isn't grateful to Draghi is a mystery to me. The consequences of driving a G8 country, the 3rd largest economy in the EU, to the ground because of moronic politicians who can't for the love of their life plan long term are horrible. It's not like the fucks given by politicians are hidden in this new currency system. FFS. Quick edit: problem number 1, 2 and 3 of Italy is to reduce its debt. Il resto è noia, everything else is boredom.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "455ceacc14850079dda8e7f4e7bd571d", "text": "I've been short the Euro for several months now against the USD (could be various others as well). I got in at 1.42, sold on a bounce up to 1.36, bought back at 1.38 and now will probably ride it out lower. Regardless of whether or not the Eurozone breaks up, I see it breaking through the 1.30 mark in the near-term. After that, I'm not sure how low it goes, but there is certainly potential for it to head towards 1/1. In order to reduce the burden, the ECB needs to devalue the currency. Although Germany really doesn't want this due to their anti-inflationary ideology, if Italy comes crashing down, so does France. When France goes, Germany goes into a deep recession if not a depression. They have to devalue some. As for a collapse, I have no idea. It probably depends on how many (if any) countries retain the currency and who they are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b183651f1a0a7f534883338f1b88285", "text": "Some comments above are inaccurate. Advertised interest rates for deposits and savings in Russia (from Russian banks) are generally for Ruble (RUB) denominated accounts; however, USD and EUR denominated accounts still offer favorable interest rates when compared to Western counterparts. For example, Sberbank advertises these Annual Interest Rates: RUB — 8.79–11.52% USD — 2.05–5.31% EUR — 2.05–5.21%", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27", "text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d27453d9a8051fc9c96ed1dfb6f78f07", "text": "Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c73a18824f53eda9fa671f3abd73034", "text": "A perpetuity in the mathematical context is the equation in your link. A perpetuity in the legal sense is a liability that never matures, presumably paying endlessly, except for a banknote that pays nothing. An example would be UK war bonds during WWII. Real estate can be modeled like a perpetuity for convenience, but it is not a legal obligation to pay forever if one excludes taxes. If one starts with capital and ends with a perpetuity, one has bought a perpetuity. If one starts out with nothing and ends with capital by way of a perpetuity, one has sold a perpetuity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605d66518dbbd354973c4ec0e56f8918", "text": "\"An endowment is a large chunk of capital (i.e. money) held by a university or other nonprofit. It is meant to hold its value forever against inflation, and invested to generate income: from interest, dividends and appreciation. They seem like a contradiction: closely scrutinized by Boards of Directors, managed to a high and accountable standard, closely regulated -- and yet, invested aggressively for growth: ignoring short-term volatility to get the highest growth long-term. The law, UPMIFA (P for Prudent), requires growth investment, and says taking up to 7% of current value per year is prudent, even in down times when total value is shrinking. On average, this lets the endowment grow with inflation. 7% is the high end of \"\"prudent\"\". An endowment is watched, and the taken income is adjusted to keep the endowment healthy. 5% is very safe, assuming the endowment must pace inflation until the heat death of the universe. If you plan to die someday, drawing an extra 1-2% is appropriate. There you go. Invest like a university endowment, and count on up to 7% per year of income. That's $21,000 a year. There'll be taxes, but the long-term capital gain rate at $21,000/year is pretty low. That's pretty tight, but possible if your idea of entertaining is Netflix. It would work very effectively for #VanLife, or the British version, living on a Narrowboat.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b18ebf162c506027217e7bf9b98aa95", "text": "Never borrow money to purchase a depreciating asset. Especially don't borrow money that has penalties attached.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d6b8b176414df94cb82c6b650b20647", "text": "To me this sounds like a transaction, where E already owns a company worth 400k and can therefore pocket the money from D and give D 25% of the profits every year. There is nothing objective (like a piece of paper) that states the company is worth 400K. It is all about perceived value. Some investors may think it is worth something because of some knowledge they may have. Heck, the company could be worth nothing but the investor could have some sentimental value associated to it. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? It is worth what someone pays for it when they pay for it. I repeat- the 400K valuation is subjective. In return the investor is getting 25% ownership of the product or company. The idea is that when someone has ownership, they have a vested interest in it being successful. In that case, the investor will do whatever he/she can to improve the chances of success (in addition to supplying the 100K capital). For instance, the investor will leverage their network or perhaps put more money into it in the future. Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash? Perhaps. It is an asset that may later be used to fund inventory (for instance). ... and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? No. See what I said about the valuation just being perception. Note that the above analysis doesn't apply to all Dragons Den deals. It only applies to situations where capital is exchanged for ownership in the form of equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db891ceccd6d732350b0ba8b68d85cfe", "text": "\"This forum is not intended to be a discussion group, but I would like to add a different perspective, especially for @MrChrister, on @littleadv's rhetorical question \"\"... estates are after-tax money, i.e.: income tax has been paid on them, yet the government taxes them again. Why?\"\" For the cash in an estate, yes, that is after-tax money, but consider other assets such as stocks and real estate. Suppose a rich man bought stock in a small computer start-up company at $10 a share about 35 years ago, and that stock is now worth $500 a share. The man dies and his will bequeaths the shares to his son. According to US tax law, the son's basis in the shares is $500 per share, that is, if the son sells the shares, his capital gains are computed as if he had purchased the shares for $500 each. The son pays no taxes on the inheritance he receives. The deceased father's last income tax return (filed by the executor of the father's will) does not list the $490/share gain as a capital gain since the father did not sell the stock (the gain is what is called an unrealized gain), and so there is no income tax due from the father on the $490/share. Now, if there is no estate tax whatsoever, the father's estate tax return pays no tax on that gain of $490 per share either. Would this be considered an equitable system? Should the government not tax the gain at all? It is worth noting that it would be possible for a government to eliminate estate taxes entirely, but instead have tax laws that say that unrealized gains on the deceased's property would be taxed (as capital gains) on the deceased's final tax return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4902a1a39912a3dd74a0f67c18da2907", "text": "\"If it's fully expensed, it has zero basis. Any sale is taxable, 100%. To the ordinary income / cap gain issue raised in comment - It's a cap gain, but I believe, as with real estate, special rates apply. This is where I am out of my area of expertise, and as they say - \"\"Consult a professional.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe6793ff8919f9399c7387c88a30ead", "text": "\"Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned \"\"intangibles\"\" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25497847731ab66954773b2b2e1e8fb1", "text": "\"For the USA part of the equation the \"\"fair market value\"\" is the value at the time you inherited it (time of death), and thus there is no capital gain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7272c31978e10ac0038691e7e9e1f605", "text": "\"The only \"\"authoritative document\"\" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 \"\"How To Figure Gain or Loss\"\", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general \"\"property\"\", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly \"\"which Bitcoin\"\" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "127853d48965a4dfdfc80c462e62052c", "text": "Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8609add874cab91d7b7d8b8d9ef26692", "text": "\"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it. Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet. Here is a schedule of the depreciation: * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m See, can't get much easier than that! Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows. You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a \"\"cash expense\"\" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project. Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations. I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions. Good Luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86d74c5991c11c86aa22cd43a0a6a4f4", "text": "\"Asset = Equity + (Income - Expense) + Liability Everything could be cancelled out in double entry accounting. By your logic, if the owner contributes capital as asset, Equity is \"\"very similar\"\" to Asset. You will end up cancelling everything, i.e. 0 = 0. You do not understate liability by cancelling them with asset. Say you have $10000 debtors and $10000 creditors. You do not say Net Debtors = $0 on the balance sheet. You are challenging the fundamental concepts of accounting. Certain accounts are contra accounts. For example, Accumulated Depreciation is Contra-Asset. Retained Loss and Unrealized Revaluation Loss is Contra-Equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe8deec27a0ed2312c70246cbca7f76", "text": "\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b622bc6d4c5c0e320f76c82c2ef0411a", "text": "\"SEC filings do not contain this information, generally. You can find intangible assets on balance sheets, but not as detailed as writing down every asset separately, only aggregated at some level (may be as detailed as specifying \"\"patents\"\" as a separate line, although even that I wouldn't count on). Companies may hold different rights to different patents in different countries, patents are being granted and expired constantly, and unless this is a pharma industry or a startup - each single patent doesn't have a critical bearing on the company performance.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ed7f6e1d3fdc84d50b5109a5767fead5", "text": "\"The other answers describe why this is highly likely to be a scam. This answer describes why you don't want to get involved, even in the unlikely case that it isn't a scam. I'm describing this using US law (which I'm not particularly familiar with, so if I go astray I'd suggest others fix any flaws in this answer), but most other countries have similar laws as these laws are all implementations of a small number of international treaties have very large memberships. The service you describe (accepting money transfers from one party and transferring them to another) is one which, if you engage in it for profit, would classify you as a \"\"financial institution\"\" under 31 USC 5312, specifically paragraph (a)(2)(R): any other person who engages as a business in the transmission of funds, including any person who engages as a business in an informal money transfer system Because you would be acting as a financial institution: Failure to follow such requirements can lead to a fine of up to $250,000 or a 5 year prison sentence (31 USC 5322). See also: Customer Identification Program and Know Your Customer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "693203b172aa4c1b7e27f7057db53bf2", "text": "Absolute scam. Any time anyone asks you to open a bank account so they can send you money and then you have to send some portion of it back to them, it's a guarantee that it's a scam. What happens is that your dad will deposit the check and transfer it to this woman, then the check will bounce (or turn out to be fake altogether) and your dad will be on the hook for the money to the bank. These schemes are dependent on the fact that people want hope and believe in quick, easy money, and it works as long as the con artists are able to get the 'mark' (the person who deposits the check and sends them the money) to send the money before the check (always drawn on some obscure foreign bank) has a chance to clear. This is another variation of a long-running type of bank scam, and if you get involved, you'll regret it. I hope you can keep your dad from getting involved, because it will create a financial mess and affect his credit as well. The basic premise of this scam is this: In the interests of providing good customer service, most banks will make some or all of a deposit available right away, even though the check hasn't cleared. The scammer has you withdraw the money (either a cashier's check, have you send a wire transfer, etc) immediately and send it to them. Eventually the check is returned because it is The bank charges the check back against your account, often imposing pretty substantial penalties and fees, so you as the account holder are left without the money you sent the scammer and all of the fees. This is the easy version of events. You could end up in legal trouble, depending on the nature of the scam and what they determine your involvement to be. It will certainly badly affect your banking history (ChexSystems tracks how we all treat bank accounts, much like the credit agencies do with our credit), so you may have trouble opening bank accounts. So there are many consequences to this to think about, and it's why you JUST SAY NO!! Don't walk away from this -- RUN!!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56fb73a2e8ec4fb502a48d6384f1265e", "text": "Yes, it is a scam. Think about it: Why would a stranger offer to give you money? Why would she need you to pay her own employees? She wouldn't. It is a scam. You have more to lose than just the $25 that is in the account. Just as has happened to your dad before, you will be receiving money that is not real, but paying real money out somewhere else. One more thing: If your dad has fallen for these scams so many times that he can't get a bank account anymore, why are you still taking financial advice from him?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dee794b7471270e27bf4efb3d49e60dd", "text": "If it's not the classic scam described in Daniel Anderson's answer, then it's probably money laundering. In that case, the woman would actually wire you money, which you have to wire to someone else she names. This is done to enter illegally gained money into the regular money circulation, hiding the trail. If this is the case, you would have to do many transfers, and the woman might actually pay you for performing this service. And then, one day, when the FBI/police busts some people and follows the illegal money trail they'll end up at your dad. Or rather, at you, because the account is in your name. And then you'll have a lot of explaining to do and a lot of time in jail to think about what a bad idea this was. See this question for an example of this. This answer also touches on the subject. Close the account, and run away from this. No good will come of it. It's very simple: if someone you don't know (or sometimes, you do know) contacts you and offers you easy money, they are getting something out of it at your expense. Period. It might be a scam where they somehow end up with the money, or you might be doing something illegal for them, but it always benefits them, not you. As a final thought, you also write: I had to get the bank account in my name because my dad has bad notices on his records for falling for fraud traps ... What makes you think this time it will be different? Think carefully, because the bank account is in your name! So when the shit hits the fan, it's you who's in trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b27e51cd348f465db58c31f745b0b37f", "text": "This is a scam, I'm adding this answer because I was scammed in this fashion. The scammer sent me a check with which I was to deposit. When the money showed up in my account, I would withdraw the scammer's share, and wire the cash to its destination. However, it takes a couple days for a check to clear. Banks, however, want you to see that money, so they might give it to you on good faith before the check actually clears. That's how the scam works, you withdraw the fake money the bank has fronted before the check clears. A couple days later, the check doesn't clear, and you wake up with an account far into the negatives, the scammer long gone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec456909c2d1c75c5820e40e811a5ee4", "text": "\"The answers here are all correct. This is 100% scam, beyond any reasonable doubt. Don't fall for it. However, I felt it valuable to explain what would happen were you to fall for this. It's not all that hard to understand, but it involves understanding some of the time delays that exist in modern banking today. The most important thing to understand is that depositing a check does not actually put dollars in your account, even though it appears to. A check is not legal tender for debts public and private. It's a piece of paper known as a \"\"bill of exchange.\"\" It's an authorization for a payee (you), to request that their bank pay you the amount on the check. A transaction made with a check does not actually draw to a close until your bank and their bank communicate and cause the actual transfer of funds to take place. This process is called \"\"clearing\"\" the check. Despite living in the modern times, this process is slow. It can take 7-10 days to clear a check (especially if it is an international bank). This is not good for the banking business. You can imagine how difficult it would be to tell a poor client, who is living paycheck to paycheck, that he can't have his pay until the check clears a week later. Banks have an interest in hiding this annoying feature of the modern banking system, so they do. When you deposit a check, the bank will typically advance you the money (an interest free loan, in effect) while the check \"\"floats\"\" (i.e. until it clears). This creates the illusion that the money is actually in your account for most intents and purposes. (presumably a bank would distinguish between the floating check and a cleared check if you tried to close out your account, but otherwise it looks and feels like the money is in your hands). Of course, if the check is dishonored (because the payer had insufficient funds, or the account simply did not exist), your bank will not get the money. At this moment, they will cancel any advances you received and notify you that the check bounced. Again, this happens 7-10 days later. The general pattern of this scam is that they will pay you by a method which clears slowly, like a check. They will then ask you to withdraw the money using a faster clearing method (like a wire transfer or withdrawing the cash). Typically they will be encouraging you to move quickly (they are on a timetable... when their check bounces, the game is up!) At this time, it will appear as though the account has a positive balance, but in fact it has a negative balance plus an advance on the check. This looks great until 7-10 days later, when the check bounces. At that time, the bank will cancel the advance, and reality will set in. You will now have an open bank account, legally opened by you in your own name, which is deeply in debt. Meanwhile, the scammer walks away with all the money that you sent them (which cleared quickly). There are many variants which can hide the details. Some can play games with check kiting to try to make your first check clear (then try to rope you in for a more painful hit). Some will change the instruments they use (checks are the easy ones, so they're simply most common). Don't try to think \"\"maybe this one is legit.\"\" These scammers literally make a living off of making shady transactions look legit. Things I would recommend looking out for:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "430e08f51f13423b6d5d986dea5e485f", "text": "100% scam. Run away. If you have already given the bank account, inform the bank and close the account. Else just close the new account opened. Do not contact the scammer or reply back.... Just ignore ... Don't read any of scammer email, they are very convincing in why it's right and why it's not a scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f203d4fad8c85d70ab23f49029d03c", "text": "This is either laundering money or laundering non-money. All the other answers point out how a cheque or bank transfer will take days to actually clear. That is a red herring! There are lots of ways to illegally transfer real money out of existing accounts. Stolen cheque books, stolen banking details (partly in connection with stolen smartphones and credit cards) and cards, money transfers from other people duped in a similar manner as you are: it is much easier to steal money than invent it, and it takes quite longer until stolen rather than invented money will blow up at the banks. All of those payments will likely properly clear but not leave you in actual legal possession of money. People will notice the missing money and notify police and banks and you will be on the hook for paying back all of it. Cheques and transfers from non-existing accounts, in contrast, tend to blow up very fast and thus are less viable for this kind of scam as the time window for operating the scam is rather small. Whether or not the cheque actually clears is about as relevant of whether or not the Rolls Royce you are buying for $500 because the owner has an ingrown toe nail and cannot press down the accelerator any more has four wheels. Better hope for the Rolls to be imaginary because then you'll only be out of $500 and that's the end of it. If it is real, your trouble is only starting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "150d853bef67f7c0cfaf4db82a35ec24", "text": "If it's real, it's illegal. She needs someone to be a middle man who transfers money and doesn't ask questions. The list of possible reasons should be plenty obvious and range anywhere from fraud to terrorism. There are thousands of ways to get already transferred money back from your account. If the source of the money is some kind of fraud that's only detected 2 years later, someone will ask you for the money back in 2 years. If real people who operate within legal and moral boundaries want to pay someone, they do not ask someone on Facebook to do it for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f703da0fbefcb219833f7a7ab96b320", "text": "\"Well, all of the previous answers already mentioned the upcoming scam and danger situation for your financial position. I thoroughly read all answers and wanted to add a few more lines on it. Cort Ammon) already shows details of it. Any kind of financial transaction involving a complete stranger is the first big scam tag that shows up and this should always 'Never Fall In' type situation. If you open a new bank account or give away any existing bank account to this lady, other than just losing some amount, you might pay earlier than clearing checks you deposited on behalf of your 'stranger' partner. Depending on their target/plan/experience with your bank account they can make you a victim of a bigger crime. There is a full length of scam plans, like sending you false checks to deposit and ask you withdrew money to send them back to even having very big incoming transaction to your account sitting idle on your account which might originate from a crime beyond the financial domain. You can try to be smart, thinking in mind, well, let them send some, I will never send them back before bank declare the deposited checks got horned and clear (and send back the amount after keeping your share). But, still you will face problems later. Even if your account fills up with real money and after confirming with bank you find it OK and never return them (scam a scammer). Still you will not have any valid authority or answer describing how/why you got this money if someone ask you later. Depending on scammer's ability, they might even give you control over fund to spend for your own (to gain some trust from your part). On this type of scam it is a sign of an even bigger danger. I live such a country, Bangladesh, from where recently they successfully transferred out around US$10 millions using a bank account of an outsider like you keeping in between source of money and final unknown destination. The result is the owner / operator of those accounts used for these transfers are now under law enforcement pressure, not only just to find out where ultimately money has gone, but for sure they will face some degree of charge for helping transfer of illegal money overseas\"\". For someone who is not part of a full scam chain it is a big deal. It might ruin their life forever. To be on the safe side, and help protect others from falling on the same type of problem you may contact your local law enforcement agency. Depending on the situation, they might be interested to run a sting operation using your information and support to catch and stop the crime going to happen soon or later. I would give a rare chance of 2% legitimate reason for anyone to use a third-party bank account to pay some other living either different country (still it is not legal, but a lower-type crime). But obviously they will not ask randomly over the Internet/social network sites. In your case this is a real scam. Be careful and stay safe; Good Luck.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c6a286121301ab403c1d42fc914feb21", "text": "Of course, it is a scam. Regardless of how the scam might work, you already know that the person on the other end is lying, and you also know that people in trouble don't contact perfect strangers out of the blue by e-mail for help, nor do they call up random phone numbers looking for help. Scammers prey on the gullibility, greed, and sometimes generosity of the victims. As to how this scam works, the money that the scammer would be depositing into your father's account is not real. However, it will take the bank a few days to figure that out. In the mean time, your father will be sending out real money back to the scammer. When the bank figures out what is going on, they will want your father to pay back this money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bb927370e4c9c826f2438fd12069a89", "text": "\"This is another version of an old scam -- \"\"let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.\"\" Here the scammer is promising to \"\"start a business\"\" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online. They are not someone you are friends with in the \"\"real\"\" world. They could be anybody. They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud. They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists. No company can just create an account in another person's name. That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works. To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your \"\"friend\"\" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money. Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited. In fact, they can't take it back. If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account. This is a situation you should run away from and never look back. Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend. You are being SCAMMED. Don't be a victim. Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind. They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e10f9fb1ebe25140c06de0de01657db", "text": "He has my bank account info, and I just want to know where I stand legally. Legally you can't keep the money. It would either go back to the originator or to Government unclaimed department. I got a bunch of missed calls from an unknown number and a really unprofessional email from a guy who supposedly worked for UNICEF saying I had 4 hours until I am suppose to be visited by police and that there was nowhere I could run to. These are common tactics employed to ensure you take some action and transfer the real money somewhere. Do not succumb to such tactics. The money is still in my account I have not touched it. Advise your Bank immediately that there is this deposit into your account that is not your's. Let the bank take appropriate action. Do not authorize Bank to debit your account. The max you can do is authorize the bank to reverse this transaction. The best is stick to statement that said transaction is not yours and Bank is free to do what is right. There is a small difference and very important. If you authorize bank to debit, you have initiated a payment. So if the original payment were revered by originator bank, you are left short of money. However if your instructions are very clear, that this specific transaction can be reversed, you cannot be additionally debited if this transaction is reversed. He has my bank account info, Depending on how easy / difficult, my suggestion would be monitor this account closely, best is if you can close it out and open a new one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93c96645f913850d5a0ff9df12226fe4", "text": "She needs to get a bank account at literally any other bank or credit union. I have not paid for a checking account ever, any bank that tries to is ripping you off. Personally I've used ING Direct/Capital One 360 for years without any problems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf65901171ca5ae8b21c0fb27c18556f", "text": "They want my online banking username and password. I don't know if it's a scam. It can't be any more obvious than that. Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER give your online banking password to ANYONE. Not your lawyer, not your bank's local branch manager, not your best friend, not your wife, not your mother, and certainly not some random person on the street/Facebook/the Internet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75c4f6840c9c634feb441c398ad5ac39", "text": "There are lots of red flags here that point to an obvious scam. First, no one, not even people close to you, ever have a valid reason to get your password or security questions. EVER. The first thing they will do is clean out the account you gave them. The second thing they will do is clean out any account of yours that uses the same password. Second, no one ever needs to run money through your account for any reason. If its not your money, don't take it. Third, this person is in the army but was deported to Africa (not to any particular country, just Africa), and is still in the army? This doesn't really make sense at all. This is a blatant obvious scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d635984a635dec13512306ce3bb4a1c1", "text": "He said he would need my first and last name and my online banking information not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Bank Address, Routing number, or checking account number This is a scam. No one needs online Banking User name and password. If you have already given this info, close your account and disable internet banking. not my date of birth, SSN, Address, Giving your date of birth and SSN is also dangerous. So my question for you is it a scam or could he really be wanting to put money into my account? Oh yeah and also he said they'll send it through my account I'll send half BACK through money gram or western union. There is no legit reason for doing this. This is 100% scam, one would only loose money. Just walk away before any damage can be done", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f01187f9acffaf8747493180e29f7a3a", "text": "I've skimmed through the answers given and I'd like do add another possible scenario. I've recently heard about this exact thing happening to someone only the money originally was a loan taken in the receivers name. 1) Scumbag finds out personal data – including social number, bank account and phone – of Innocent Victim. 2) Scumbag takes out a loan in the name of Innocent Victim. The money are sent to IV's account. 3) Scumbag calls IV saying 'Oh, I've made a mistake, blah, blah, yada, yada. Could you please send the money back to me? My bank account is...' 4) Innocent Victim, being the good guy that he/she is, of course want to help out and send the money to Scumbag. 5) Scumbag makes a cash withdrawal and is no longer anywhere to be found and Innocent Victim is left with a loan but no money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c931860195065d9558dc966e8eae2e83", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes this is a scam. I see three different possibilities how they get you. I will rank them from \"\"best\"\" to worst Scammer A sends 100$ to you. You then follow his instructions and send back 50$ through WU (this is untraceable). He then contacts his bank and tells them he never intended to send that 100$ to you, then bank will then reverse that transaction and give him back his money, leaving you 50$ short. Scammer A hacks or scams innocent person B and either sends B:s money to you or tricks person B to do it. When person B reports this to the police it will look like you were behind the whole thing. The transaction will be reversed leaving you 50$ short and with unwanted police attention (see this article for an extreme example: https://www.wired.com/2015/10/online-dating-made-woman-pawn-global-crime-plot/) The nice person A wants to send money to a criminal syndicate or terrorist organization but don't want to be associated with it. Leaving you 50$ up (hurray) and possibly on a bunch of terrorist watch lists (ouch!). The extra info you provide wouldn't be necessary for any of these scams but I guess it could be nice to have for some regular identity theft. This is by no means an exhaustive list of all that the scammers could do. It's just a short list to show you how dangerous it would be to play along. To state the obvious, don't walk from this person, RUN!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e75eceb1b2ab7c39bcb9e9670364114b", "text": "This will end badly, the only question is how long it will take. Performing bank transfers is not difficult and there is no way a 3rd party would be paying her large sums of money to perform these transfers unless the purpose was illegitimate and they were taking advantage of her. In my experience it is as simple as entering the target bank account routing and account #, entering the name (this is not double-checked by the bank to associate with the target account), entering a dollar amount and then agreeing to the terms of the transfer--there are not people out there who have a lot of money but would rather pay somebody $2000+ to do 2 minutes of work in an unofficial capacity instead of just doing it themselves unless they are trying to hide something and/or take advantage of a mark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625b4ac57726954c615a0f324b509988", "text": "There are several red flags here. can they get my bank account info in any way from me transferring money to them? Probably yes. Almost all bank transactions are auditable, and intentionally cause a money track. This track can be followed from both sides. If they can use your bank account as if they were you, that is a bit deeper than what you are asking, but yes they (and the polish cops) can find you through that transfer. I did look up the company and didn't find any scam or complaints concerning them. Not finding scams or complains is good, but what did you find? Did you find good reviews, the company website, its register, etc, etc? How far back does the website goes (try the wayback machine) Making a cardboard front company is very easy, and if they are into identity theft the company is under some guy in guam that never heard of poland or paypal. As @Andrew said above, it is probably a scam. I'd add that this scam leverages on the how easier is to get a PayPal refund compared to a regular bank transfer. It is almost impossible to get the money back on an international transaction. Usually reverting a bank transfer requires the agreement in writing of the receiver and of both banks. As for paypal, just a dispute from the other user: You are responsible for all Reversals, Chargebacks, fees, fines, penalties and other liability incurred by PayPal, a PayPal User, or a third party caused by your use of the Services and/or arising from your breach of this Agreement. You agree to reimburse PayPal, a User, or a third party for any and all such liability. (source) Also, you might be violating the TOS: Allow your use of the Service to present to PayPal a risk of non-compliance with PayPal’s anti-money laundering, counter terrorist financing and similar regulatory obligations (including, without limitation, where we cannot verify your identity or you fail to complete the steps to lift your sending, receiving or withdrawal limit in accordance with sections 3.3, 4.1 and 6.3 or where you expose PayPal to the risk of any regulatory fines by European, US or other authorities for processing your transactions); (emphasis mine, source) So even if the PayPal transfer is not disputed, how can you be sure you are not laundering money? Are you being paid well enough to assume that risk?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e924bb349d88a39b7f61f8246bb3872", "text": "It may be a scam. But it also may be a company trying to find a person with the same or similar name. They may have followed a trail to her old address, and still not have the correct person. They bought number of old debts at a large discount, and are trying to track down any money they can find. It is best to ignore it, especially if they know it isn't their debt. If they start providing more proof then get interested. If they keep contacting them tell them there is no business relationship and they should stop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0609f1d284b9b9312fac1274ea08a5bf", "text": "I agree with you: it sounds like a scam. Those terms are too good to be true. Online, it is too easy to pretend to be someone you are not. When choosing a bank to work with, you need to be confident of its legitimacy. Make sure you have heard of it someplace other than their own website and can trust it. In this case, this isn't even a bank; it is just an individual stranger. I can't see how this could possibly be legitimate. With the information that they are asking for, they could potentially impersonate you and steal your money. I would stay away from this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d5b2fbe25a7e017d381403558ff5054", "text": "\"If it makes you feel any better, I now bank with a credit union. These WF assholes called me one day to tell me that someone had tried to withdraw $500 from my account and that I needed to sign up for a more secure account, of course with a $16 monthly charge. So I did what anybody would do... went to the bank and ask questions right? After I got there and mention the problem they told me that nothing was wrong with my account, that no transactions were attempted and even if they did attempt them and were canceled they would still show up but they didn't. Few minutes later I got another call from that guy and he was telling me that the problem was taken care of and that I didn't need to go to the bank. After that I was just suspicious. Basically what it came down to was that somebody was trying to set me up for accounts that I didn't ask for just so he can get promoted at my expense. They gave me a opportunity to report him but I didn't because I knew him personally, he was one of my \"\"friends\"\" and at the time he had two kids. I didn't want him to lose his job. I told him that what he did was completely fucked up and that you don't do that to people outside of WF. That same day I withdrew all my money. I still remember cutting the conversation short after WF tried to convince me all kinds of ways not to do that. I been with a Credit Union about 3 years now and so far so good.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b55c9ab7182e830d25cd7db9d3e80f7c", "text": "You should check with the Office of Student Affairs (or equivalent) at your University to see if you can accept Credit Cards. Many will only allow you to accept student organization dues paid in cash, check, or money order. Many universities will also provide your organization with basic operating funds, if you request it. Your first point of contact should be your faculty adviser, though. Your best bet would be to just use cash. Learn where the nearest ATMs are. If you are set on using credit cards, set up a PayPal account and just use it to reimburse the person who fronts the money (cover the markup). Everyone will have to have a PayPal account set up, linked to their credit card. You can avoid fees by using a bank account. If you're so inclined, you can set up a Business account and have a PayPal Debit Card, but you'll want to check with your adviser / University by-laws to see if you're allowed. Don't expect any of these to work as website implementations. As you're a University group, you will undoubtedly be meeting in person such that an exchange of cash/check/money order would be trivial In short, you'll need to check into the rules of your University. Credit cards generally carry processing fees, charged to the merchant, which (on its own) carries some tax implications.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2ebc51ea3ece02616b2a17de7995dd55", "text": "One of the reasons, apart from historical, is that different people have different tax liabilities which the employer may not be aware of. For example, in the US we don't pay taxes in source on investment income, and there are many credits and deductions that we can't take. So if I have a child and some interest income from my savings account - employer's withholding will not match my actual tax liability. There are credits for children, additional taxes for the interest, and the actual tax brackets vary based on my marital status and filing options I chose. So even the same family of two people married will pay different amounts in taxes if they chose to file separate tax returns for each, than if they chose to file jointly on one tax return. For anyone who've lived anywhere else, like you and me, this system is ridiculously complex and inefficient, but for Americans - that works. Mainly for the reason of not knowing anything better, and more importantly - not wanting to know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc721c0bcdd095c130ae3e926407beb0", "text": "Companies in the US will take care of paying a portion of your required income tax on your behalf based on some paperwork you fill out when starting work. However, it is up to you as an individual to submit an income tax return. This is used to ensure that you did not end up under or overpaying based on what your company did on your behalf and any other circumstances that may impact your actual tax owed. In my experience, the process is similar in Europe. I think anyone who has a family, a house or investments in Europe would need to file an income tax return as that is when things start to get complex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7e48a751c2595dbe3484d870dcd8f2", "text": "Politics is certainly part of the equation, in two ways that I can think of. These don't necessarily reflect my views; just trying to explain as I see it. First, there are a lot of interests in having the current, convoluted tax system entrenched. ProPublica did a piece talking about the question you're asking, and Intuit, makers of the popular tax software TurboTax, is mentioned as someone who lobbied heavily to keep the kind of system you describe out. It's spun as increasing the size and cost of government (which, I guess, is true - someone has to do the work if you aren't filing) while opening up possibilities for error, but the piece portrays the companies as being more interested in preserving the status quo. Second, plenty of people don't like the idea that taxation is done automatically, out of sight and out of mind. An issue that illustrates this is airline pricing. Consumers don't like seeing a $19 fare advertisement and then finding out that they'll actually have to pay $50 after the taxes are added. However, those in the airline industry and those who are generally against taxes don't like the idea that a tax can be added without the consumer really knowing that the government was responsible for the price increase. You sometimes see this with gasoline prices, where taxes are built into the price per gallon. My home state of Pennsylvania recently raised the gas tax without anyone really noticing since the overall price was dropping dramatically at the time. Contrast that to Pittsburgh-area bars who were able to very specifically pin an alcohol tax on its creator. Point being, direct deposits with automatic deductions already take most of the thinking out of taxation. Those in that situation really only think about their income in terms of the amount that shows in their bank account. For some, that time of filing taxes is the one time a year where you actually get to reflect on the amount of money you're paying the government for its services. The more automatic taxation is and the less that the public thinks about it, the easier it is for the government to raise it without people noticing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c3b32d642fa5b954e6042862d04208d", "text": "One significant reason it makes sense for filing to be the default is home ownership rates. I think far more so than investment income, Americans own homes: as there is a significant mortgage interest deduction, between that and investments a large number of Americans would have to file (about a third of Americans get the mortgage interest tax deduction, and a large chunk of the richest don't qualify but would have to file for investments anyway). We also have a very complicated tax code, with nearly everyone getting some kind of deduction. Earned Income Tax Credit for the working poor (folks making, say, $30k for a family of 4 with a full-time job get several thousand dollars in refundable credits, for example), the Student Loan interest deduction, the above mortgage deduction, almost everyone gets something. Finally, your employer may not know about your family situation. As we have tax credits and deductions for families based on number of children, for example, it's possible your employer doesn't know about those (if you don't get health insurance on their behalf, they may well not know). Start reporting things like that separately... and you end up with about as much work as filing is now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34c6ffd4f6937b9f699694625fb90cca", "text": "you either tell your financial department about them (e.g. I used to get a student's tax discount), or you file them separately. But you don't have to file anything by default. That is a comment connected to the question. In the united states you can almost achieve this. 90% of the numbers on my tax form are automated. The W-2s are sent to the IRS, the 1099-s for my non retirement accounts are also sent. The two biggest items that take time are charities, and the educational benefits. Nobody has to claim every deduction they are entitled to. They must claim all the income, and decide to take the standard deduction. It would probably take less than an hour to finish the families taxes: both federal and state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4050e7aa2a9879a939f6171b5d7f7540", "text": "For two reasons: 1- People are entitled to deductions and credits that your employer cannot possibly know. Only you as an individual know about your personal situation and can therefore claim these deductions and credits by filing income tax returns. 2- Me telling you that you made $100,000 last year is not the same as telling you that you made $125,000 last year, but someone took $25,000 out of your pocket. Tax season is the one time of the year when citizens know exactly what chunk of their hard earned money was taken by the government, creating more collective awareness about taxation and giving politicians a harder time when they propose raising taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fccf2c362ccdc6e673a1f0f6bb4650b", "text": "\"I think the key point that's making the other commenters misunderstand each other here is the concept of \"\"deductions\"\". I can only speak for the UK, but that's only a concept that business owners would understand in this country. For things like child credits or low income tax credits, we don't get paid them at the end of the tax year, but into our bank accounts every couple of weeks all year round. Therefore, we have nothing to \"\"deduct\"\". If we work for a company and have business expenses, then the company pays for them. If we make interest on our savings, the bank pays it for us. We make money at our jobs, and the employer works out what taxes and national insurance we owe, based on a tax code that the government works out for us annually (which we can challenge). To be fair, it's not like we're free from bureaucracy if we want to claim these benefits. There are often lots of forms if you want child benefit or disability allowances, for instance. We just apply as soon as we're eligible, rather than waiting to get a lump sum rebate. So it appears to be a very different system, and neither is inherently better than the other (though I'm personally glad I don't usually have to fill in a big tax return myself, which I only did one year when I was self employed). I'd be interested to know, since Google has let me down, which countries use the American system, and which the British or Czech.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf197d98fba216c137fb164954bbc72", "text": "There are a few reasons: 1) Deductions and credits. We have a lot of them. While I suppose we could pass this information on to our employers for them to file, why would we want to? That just unnecessarily adds a middle-man as well as sharing potentially private information more than it needs to be shared. This is the one that effects the most people. 2) Income sources. While normal employment, contract work, and normal investment income already gets reported to the IRS, this is not true for all sources of income. For one, the U.S. is almost completely by itself on actually taxing income that its citizens earn outside of the U.S. While this policy is completely absurd, the only way for the government to know about such income is for the person to report it, since the IRS can't require foreign employers to send information to them. Also, barter income as well as other income that doesn't meet the qualifications for the payer to be required to inform the government requires the employee to self-report. Similarly, capital gains on things outside of normal investments (real estate, for instance) require self-reporting. Having said all of this, U.S. reporting requirements are absurd and illogical. For instance, the IRS already knows about all of my stock trading activity. My broker is required to report it to them. Yet, I still have to list out every single trade on my own return, which is really tedious and completely redundant. For charitable contributions, on the other hand, I only have to give the IRS the final total without listing out all of the individual donations, despite the fact that they don't have that information made available to them by another source. It makes no sense at all, but such is the federal government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e28c801f22c2f447afbb2c3129b03a8", "text": "One of the reasons is also general distrust to the government. Another one is that there exist special interest group which profits from the complicated scheme, keep adding special cases, and has stronger financial situation that the opponents of such complex scheme. People do not trust government, or companies, to act in their best interests. So they (we) waste huge amount of time and/or money to comply with byzantine income laws. In 2004 Democratic presidential primary, presidential candidate Wes Clark (who beyond being 4-star general has also master degree in economics from Oxford, and taught economics in West point) proposed similar scheme: for people with income under 50K, employer would do all the (simple) paperwork, if desired, and get return. In the noise of the campaign, idea how to simplify taxes for half of the population was lost. Funny how the only candidate in recent history who was both professor of economics (not MBA, which is about business and profits) and distinguished military hero, could not get any traction in Democratic party.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5", "text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37d6d032b29df48450256623c47872d7", "text": "Why is the US still working with paper checks when Europe went digital about a decade ago? Tax filing is just another area in which the US is lagging. Modernizing it costs money, and the US is quite close to bankruptcy (as seen by the repeated government shutdowns). Also, the US tax code is quite complicated. For instance, I doubt there's anyone who has a full and complete list of all allowed deductions. Some comments wonder about multiple incomes. This doesn't require tax filing either. My local tax authority just sends me a combined statement with data from 2 employers and 2 banks, and asks me to confirm the resulting payment. This is possible because tax number usage is strictly regulated. SSN abuse in the US presumably makes this problematic.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2148f54cd790ae6431fc9768685838ae", "text": "This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a893e25436b9cbfb0e1fb03cc15dea", "text": "\"The tax system in general, and income tax in particular, is used for several purposes at once. One of those purposes is to raise money to run the government. It isn't the only purpose of income tax, and income tax isn't the only source of money to run the government. Try a thought experiment: let's say it costs $10,000 per person per year to run the government. (It might actually cost far more or far less, that's not the point.) A super simple tax system would just ask each person for $10,000. But such a system isn't fair. Some people don't even earn $10,000 so they are literally not able to pay that. Some people, who earn a lot, can easily afford to pay more. So a still-pretty simple approach asks each person to pay a particular percentage of their income, and the hope is that this will add up to enough to run the government. This still doesn't feel fair to everyone - 10% of your income is hard to find when you're spending it all on rent and food, and easy to find when you have way more than you \"\"need\"\". So many countries have what's called a \"\"progressive\"\" system of income tax where you pay no tax on the first X of your income, then a small percentage on the next Y, a larger percentage on the next Z and so on. But you asked about business profit. Some places don't tax business profits at all - they just collect income taxes on people once the money reaches them as salary or dividends. Other places do. Just as a person who doesn't earn any income can't send the government money, a business that spent more on expenses than it brought in as revenue can't send the government money either. So the tax is on profit. That seems fairer to most people anyway. Things then get even more complicated for both business and personal income taxes because the government uses the system to encourage certain behaviours and to help people facing hard times. If you want to encourage people to get training and move into higher paying jobs, you might make tuition tax deductible. Most countries give a tax deduction for each small child you have. This isn't because people with children use less of the services government provides, is it? Instead it's an acknowledgement that people with children generally have less money to spend. Or an encouragement to have children, or something. Tax motivations are complicated. If you charged all businesses a flat tax regardless of whether they were making or losing money, people might be hesitant to start companies that lose money at first. There might be less entrepreneurship in that country. If instead you only tax profits, it feels fairer and more people are likely to join in. So that's what most governments do. Is the imaginary business owner who is not turning a profit somehow getting a free ride? They are still paying tax. If they took any salary for themselves, there was personal income tax on that. Everything the company bought, it paid sales tax on. There may have been excise taxes and such in other things they bought. The economic activity of the business has been driving the wheel of the local economy and spinning off some taxes at various levels that whole time. Whether the business itself is chipping in some corporate income tax too may not end up being particularly relevant. Example: a sole proprietor has revenue of $100,000 and spends $10,000 on supplies and such. If the salary to the owner is $89,000 the company has a $1000 profit which it pays tax on. If the salary to the owner is $91,000 the company has a $1000 loss and doesn't pay tax (and may be able to use the loss to reduce taxes in a future year.) So what? The owner is paying personal income tax on roughly $90,000. The government is getting the support it needs. Yes, some owners do all the \"\"encouraged\"\" things so that some income is not taxed either in the business or the personal sphere. That is presumably what the government wanted when it set those things up as deductions. Making charitable contributions, hiring new employees, building new facilities ... essentially the government is paying the business to do those things because they're good for the country. The overall government budget (funded by personal and corporate income tax along with sales tax, excises taxes etc) is supposed to achieve certain goals which include roads and schools but also job creation and the like. This is one of the ways they do that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5710a9517113ced432ead99b5b195a7", "text": "Corporations are taxed on their profits. Multinational corporations can report their profits in any country they have operations, regardless of where they made the sale. In other words, it's impossible to nail down exactly where a company 'made it's money'. So the US doesn't try, we just tax them on earnings everywhere, minus taxes paid elsewhere. edit for clarity", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d576f8479bbb1c76bf7bc1d479b5a3ed", "text": "In Sri Lanka, this is the normal practice. We, employees are free from the burden of paying tax for the income we get as a salary. Because that part is been taken care of by the company/employer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d945f60dc70338f915c42b0e43fabc1", "text": "\"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2165327c3c3f3f94f8d28852faad5bfd", "text": "Driver's license isn't relevant. If NYS considers you a part-year resident, they assess income tax on a pro rata basis. NY is broke now, so expect them to be really obnoxious about it if you make a lot of money. California probably has a similar policy. If you really make a lot of money, the demands of the states in these matters are insane. I've read of cases where a state has actually demanded that an individual provide documentation of their in-/out-of-state status for every day of the year!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcdface48a9f353cc85ba3f68300bc3", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11cdeaad788b7bd62e45704991b7ad2", "text": "Plenty of retired people do stay in the US for longer than 60 days and don't pay taxes. In this IRS document 60 days stay appears to be the test for having a 'substantial presence' in the US, which is part of the test for determining residency. However the following is also written: Even if you meet the substantial presence test, you can be treated as a nonresident alien if you are present in the United States for fewer than 183 days during the current calendar year, you maintain a tax home in a foreign country during the year, and you have a closer connection to that country than to the United States. In other words, if your property in the US is not your main one, you pay tax in another country, and you stay there less than half the year, you should be treated as a non-resident (I am not a lawyer and this is not advice). This IRS webpage describes the tax situation of nonresident aliens. As I understand it, if you are not engaged in any kind of business in the US and have no income from US sources then you do not have to file a tax return. You should also look into the subject of double tax agreements. If your home country has one, and you pay taxes there, you probably won't need to pay extra tax to the US. But again, don't take my word for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c96c65bcc9fe561701a6ab35ac8a025", "text": "What a coincidence! This was an exam question for my business law class. The main reason why individuals are not allowed to deduct expenses is because income tax revenue would be zero. The reason being, if an individual is allowed to deduct expenses he/she would spend 100% of their income and deduct it all on their tax returns, which would mean he/she would pay virtually no income tax. This is bad for the gov't and the economy. It's bad for the gov't because they loose tax revenue, and it's bad for the economy because people would not have any savings for tough times, which can send the economy into a negative spiral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e54f8026b89f25711e7092dcbbaf3e1", "text": "From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue: 1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included: Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts: A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income: Apportionment Methods: The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows: Gross income is multiplied by a: So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax. If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that. If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that. If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon). Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally. It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other. I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference. All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner. If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business. Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business. This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon. If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28526f65abdc2985664cffeb477ba4eb", "text": "\"IRS Pub 554 states (click to read full IRS doc): \"\"Do not file a federal income tax return if you do not meet the filing requirements and are not due a refund. ... If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien, you must file a return if your gross income for the year was at least the amount shown on the appropriate line in Table 1-1 below. \"\" You may not have wage income, but you will probably have interest, dividend, capital gains, or proceeds from sale of a house (and there is a special note that you must file in this case, even if you enjoy the exclusion for primary residence)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011", "text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8364441010f6737d8fc4c32e0f598d57", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c2a78b891bb6313aa4aef5e470df86", "text": "\"Do not store credit cards on your servers! You will get into HUGE trouble if they get stolen. Instead, the whole credit card transaction should be done in a \"\"frame\"\" on a web that is handle by a credit card processor you chose. Once the transaction is finished, you get a code for the credit card number (masked credit card number) that no-one can convert back to a credit card number (except the processor). When you need to charge more or give refund, you use that code to tell the processor what credit card to make the charges/credits to.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ad7c7d22f698689877927cd820cb3899", "text": "Your best bet would be to find an independent Property and Casualty Insurance agent and buy through him/her. Insurance agents make a commission, yes - BUT - the cost to consumer is THE SAME whether you buy through an agent or through directly through the company. Any P&C agent would be happy to run your numbers for you and tell you what the cheapest deal is. Just make sure you find someone who writes for several different large insurers. Obviously, some P&C Insurance agents are slick salesy types, which can get annoying, but if you find someone nice, he or she can help you out at no cost to you (they are paid by the insurance company they place the business with). If you are straightforward with the agent about exactly what your needs, they can get you quotes quickly and save you a lot of time and hassle.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4cfffdac2d5dcc80ccfa0c1f8f6469a9", "text": "Insurance is for events that are both and Unexpected and, for many people, catastrophic events are, for example, sickness, disability, death, car accidents, house fires, and burglaries, for which you may buy health, disability, life, auto, home, and renter's insurance. It may be catastrophic for a family relying on a very old earner for that earner to die, and you can buy life insurance up to a very old age, but the premiums will reflect the likelihood of someone of that age dying within the covered period. The more expected an event is, the more anything referred to as insurance is actually forced savings. Health insurance with no copays on regular checkups expects the insured to use them, so the cost of those checkups plus a profit for the insurance company is factored into the premiums ahead of time. A wooden pencil breaking may be unexpected. Regardless of foreseeability, no one buys insurance on wooden pencils, as the loss of a pencil is not catastrophic. What is catastrophic can be context dependent. Health-care needs are typically unforeseeable, as you don't know when you'll get sick. For a billionaire, needing health-care, while unforeseeable, the situation would not be catastrophic, and the billionaire can easily self-insure his or her health to the same extent as most caps offered by health insurance companies. If you're on a fixed budget buying a laptop, if it unexpectedly failed, that would be catastrophic to you, so budgeting in the cost of insurance or an extended warranty while buying your laptop would probably make sense. Especially if you need that $2000 laptop, spending an extra 17.5% would safeguard against you having to come out of pocket and depleting your savings to replace it, even though that brings you to a grand total of $2350 before taxes. However, if you're in that tight of a situation, I would strongly recommend you to find a less expensive option that would allow you to self-insure. If you found a used laptop for much less (I can even see Apple selling refurbished Macs for less than $1000) you might decide that your budget allows you to self-insure, and you could profit from being careful with your hardware and resolving to cover any issues with it yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3d1e961c626c0fa9fd975e9eb47b271", "text": "\"As others have pointed out, it's all about a fixed, small cost versus the potential of a large cost. If you have insurance, you know you will pay a fixed amount per month. There is a 100% probability that you will have to pay this premium. If you don't have insurance, there is a large chance that you will have no cost in any given month, and a small chance that you will have a large cost. Like my home-owners insurance costs me about $50 per month. If I didn't have insurance and my house burned down, I would be out something like $100,000. What's the chance that my house will burn down this month? Very small. But I'd rather pay $50 and not have to worry about it. On the other hand, I just bought a filing cabinet for $160 and the store offered me an \"\"extended warranty\"\" for something like $20 a year. What's the probability that some accident will happen that damages my filing cabinet? Pretty small. Even if it did, I think I could handle shelling out $160. I can imagine my stomach in knots and lying awake at nights worrying about the possibility of losing $100,000 or finding myself homeless. I can't imagine lying awake at nights worrying about losing $160 or being force to stuff my files under the bed. I'll take my chances. When I was young and had even less money than I have now, I bought cars that cost me a thousand dollars or. Even poor as I was, I knew that if the car was totaled I could dig up the cash to buy another. It wasn't worth paying the insurance premium. These days I'm driving a car that cost me $6,000. I have collision and comprehensive insurance, but I think it's debatable. I bought the car with cash to begin with, and if I had to I could scrape up the cash to replace it. Especially considering that my last payment for my daughter's college tuition is due next month and then that expense is gone. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5cb871765cef7636b0ae4f9b40607303", "text": "\"Life Insurance can be a difficult decision. We have to first assess the \"\"want\"\" for it vs. the \"\"need\"\" for it, and that differs from person to person. Any Life licensed agent should be happy to do this calculation for you at no cost and no obligation. Just be sure you are well educated in the subject to make sure they are looking after YOUR needs and not their wallets. For the majority of clients, when looking at \"\"needs\"\" we will be sure to look at income coverage (less what the household needs with one less body) as well as debt coverage, education costs etc. More importantly make sure you are buying the RIGHT insurance, as much as the right amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af295f15e39fc8e4b5ebc9f7ec6da0b5", "text": "Some things you missed in your analysis: How will financing change your insurance costs? I.e. what is the difference between the insurance that you would buy for yourself and what they require? Note that it is possible that your insurance preferences are more stringent than the financing company's. If so, this isn't a big deal. But what's important is to consider if that's true. Because if you'd prefer to drive with only the legal minimum insurance and they insist that you have full coverage with no more than a $1000 deductible, that's a significant difference. Remember that you don't have $22.5k for six years. You have an average of $10.5k (($22.5k + -$1500)/2) for six years. Because you make payments ($24k) throughout. So you start with $22.5k and subtract $333.33 a month until you reach -$1500. That neglects both investment gains and potential losses. It's not the $333 payment that will freak out mortgage companies. It's the $24k debt. But that's offset by your $22.5k in assets at the beginning. And the car of course counts as an asset, albeit at lower than its sale value. I.e. from the bank's perspective, paying $22.5k for a car out of savings is almost as bad as borrowing $24k for a car. Both reduce your net worth. Watch out for hidden fees. In particular, 0% interest can often change into higher interest under certain circumstances. If we assume a 7% return for the six years, that's about $1400 the first year and less each year after. Perhaps $4500 over six years. But you aren't going to get a 7% return if you keep $24,000 in a bank account in case you have to pay off the loan. Instead, you'll get more like 1%, less than inflation. Even five year Certificates of Deposit are only about 2%, right around inflation (1.9% for previous twelve months). You can't keep the $24,000 in a securities account and be sure that it will be there when you need it. If the market crashes tomorrow, your $24,000 might be worth $12,000 instead. You'd have to throw in extra money from elsewhere. Instead of making $4500 at the cost of $1500, you'd have paid $25,500 for $12,000. Not a good deal. So for your plan to work, that $24,000 needs to be in an account that won't fall in value. You either need to compromise on the idea of a separate account that is always there when you need it, or you have to accept rather low returns. Personally, I would prefer not to have the debt and not to pay extra on the insurance. But that's me. The potential investment returns are not worth it to me. If you give up the separate account, you can make a few thousand dollars more. But your risk is higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f42e7c2c07d4c18904e3c41d33b8a482", "text": "\"Here's my thought - call the insurance company back. Ask them to just tell you what the \"\"reasonable and customary\"\" approved payment would be. Offer that exact amount to the hospital, it's what they would have gotten anyway, and you learned a cheap lesson.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1837651d08056accb28bde3581e2eb92", "text": "\"The two questions inherent in any decision to purchase an insurance plan is, \"\"how likely am I to need it?\"\", and \"\"what's the worst case scenario if I don't have it?\"\". The actuary that works for the insurance company is asking these same questions from the other end (with the second question thus being \"\"what would we be expected to have to pay out for a claim\"\"), using a lot of data about you and people like you to arrive at an answer. It really boils down to little more than a bet between you and the insurance company, and like any casino, the insurer has a house edge. The question is whether you think you'll beat that edge; if you're more likely than the insurer thinks you are to have to file a claim, then additional insurance is a good bet. So, the reasons you might decide against getting umbrella insurance include: Your everyday liability is low - Most people don't live in an environment where the \"\"normal\"\" insurance they carry won't pay for their occasional mistakes or acts of God. The scariest one for most is a car accident, but when you think of all the mistakes that have to be made by both sides in order for you to burn through the average policy's liability limits and still be ruined for life, you start feeling better. For instance, in Texas, minimum insurance coverage levels are 50/100/50; assuming neither party is hurt but the car is a total loss, your insurer will pay the fair market value of the car up to $50,000. That's a really nice car, to have a curbside value of 50 grand; remember that most cars take an initial hit of up to 25% of their sticker value and a first year depreciation of up to 50%. That 50 grand would cover an $80k Porsche 911 or top-end Lexus ES, and the owner of that car, in the U.S. at least, cannot sue to recover replacement value; his damages are only the fair market value of the car (plus medical, lost wages, etc, which are covered under your two personal injury liability buckets). If that's a problem, it's the other guy's job to buy his own supplemental insurance, such as gap insurance which covers the remaining payoff balance of a loan or lease above total loss value. Beyond that level, up into the supercars like the Bentleys, Ferraris, A-Ms, Rollses, Bugattis etc, the drivers of these cars know full well that they will never get the blue book value of the car from you or your insurer, and take steps to protect their investment. The guys who sell these cars also know this, and so they don't sell these cars outright; they require buyers to sign \"\"ownership contracts\"\", and one of the stipulations of such a contract is that the buyer must maintain a gold-plated insurance policy on the car. That's usually not the only stipulation; The total yearly cost to own a Bugatti Veyron, according to some estimates, is around $300,000, of which insurance is only 10%; the other 90% is obligatory routine maintenance including a $50,000 tire replacement every 10,000 miles, obligatory yearly detailing at $10k, fuel costs (that's a 16.4-liter engine under that hood; the car requires high-octane and only gets 3 mpg city, 8 highway), and secure parking and storage (the moguls in Lower Manhattan who own one of these could expect to pay almost as much just for the parking space as for the car, with a monthly service contract payment to boot). You don't have a lot to lose - You can't get blood from a turnip. Bankruptcy laws typically prevent creditors from taking things you need to live or do your job, including your home, your car, wardrobe, etc. For someone just starting out, that may be all you have. It could still be bad for you, but comparing that to, say, a small business owner with a net worth in the millions who's found liable for a slip and fall in his store, there's a lot more to be lost in the latter case, and in a hurry. For the same reason, litigious people and their legal representation look for deep pockets who can pay big sums quickly instead of $100 a month for the rest of their life, and so very few lawyers will target you as an individual unless you're the only one to blame (rare) or their client insists on making it personal. Most of your liability is already covered, one way or the other - When something happens to someone else in your home, your homeowner's policy includes a personal liability rider. The first two \"\"buckets\"\" of state-mandated auto liability insurance are for personal injury liability; the third is for property (car/house/signpost/mailbox). Health insurance covers your own emergency care, no matter who sent you to the ER, and life and AD&D insurance covers your own death or permanent disability no matter who caused it (depending on who's offering it; sometimes the AD&D rider is for your employer's benefit and only applies on the job). 99 times out of 100, people just want to be made whole when it's another Average Joe on the other side who caused them harm, and that's what \"\"normal\"\" insurance is designed to cover. It's fashionable to go after big business for big money when they do wrong (and big business knows this and spends a lot of money insuring against it), but when it's another little guy on the short end of the stick, rabidly pursuing them for everything they're worth is frowned on by society, and the lawyer virtually always walks away with the lion's share, so this strategy is self-defeating for those who choose it; no money and no friends. Now, if you are the deep pockets that people look for when they get out of the hospital, then a PLP or other supplemental liability insurance is definitely in order. You now think (as you should) that you're more likely to be sued for more than your normal insurance will cover, and even if the insurance company thinks the same as you and will only offer a rather expensive policy, it becomes a rather easy decision of \"\"lose a little every month\"\" or \"\"lose it all at once\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "178079e49d198adc9e190e0c8595728b", "text": "\"People's value of money is not always linear. Consider an individual with $1000 in the bank. I'm going to look at amounts of debt by orders of magnitude: Now its pretty easy to see a order of magnitude increase in impact from $100 to $1000, and it becomes slightly worse for the $10,000 case due to debt. However, one more order of magnitude, going to $100,000, and suddenly it becomes hard to argue that there's a mere \"\"order of magnitude more hurt\"\" than the $10,000 case. From the cases I've read, those sorts of situations can be far far worse than the monetary cost could convey. Insurance companies are in a good position to absorb $100,000 of debt if something happens, far better position than the individual. They rely on the central limit theorem: in general, they don't have to pay out all at once. The insurance companies have their limits too. When hurricane Katrina came through, the insurance companies had a tremendously difficult time dealing with so many claims all at once. Just like the individuals, they found a sudden change in how much value they had to put on their monetary debts!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd9b76c3ca143af260f9aa3290c8779a", "text": "\"These policies are usually called dread disease policies or critical illness insurance, and they normally aren't a good deal. Furthermore, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, such policies may become less common or disappear entirely. These policies aren't a great deal because of the effects of adverse selection and asymmetric information, two closely related concepts in the economics of insurance. When you purchase an insurance policy, the insurance company charges you a premium based on your average risk level or the average risk level of your risk pool, e.g. you and your fellow employees, if you get insurance through your employer. For health insurance, this average risk level is the average probability that you'll incur healthcare costs. The insurer's actuaries calculate this probability from numerous factors, like your age, sex, current health, socioeconomic status, etc. Asymmetric information exists when you know more about this probability than the insurance company does. For example, you may look like a relatively low-risk individual on paper, but little does the insurance company know, BASE jumping is one of your hobbies. Because you know about your hobby and the insurance company doesn't, you secretly know that your risk of incurring healthcare expenses is much higher than the insurance company expects. If the insurance company knew this, they would like to charge you a much higher premium, if they could. However, they can't, because a) they don't know about your hobby, and b) the premium may be decided for the entire group/risk pool, so they can't increase it simply because a few individuals in the group have higher risk levels. Adverse selection occurs when individuals with higher risk levels are more likely to buy insurance. You may decide that because of your dangerous hobby, you do want to take advantage of your employer's healthcare plan. Unfortunately for the insurance company, they can't adjust their price accordingly. Adverse selection is a major factor in insurance markets, so I didn't go into much detail here (too much detail is probably off-topic anyway). I can point you towards more resources on the topic if you're interested. However, the situation is different when you purchase a dread disease policy. By expressing interest in such a specific policy, e.g. a cancer insurance policy, you signal to the insurance company that you feel you have a higher risk of facing that disease. In your case, you're signaling to the insurance company that your family probably has a history of cancer or that you have habits that make you more susceptible to it, and your premiums will be higher to compensate the insurance company for bearing this additional risk. Since the insurance company already has a rough estimate of your chances of developing that illness, they may already know that you have a higher chance of facing it. However, when you express interest in a disease-specific policy, this signals the existence of asymmetric information (your family history or other habits), and the insurer assumes you know something they don't that elevates your risk level of that specific disease. Since these policies are optional policies often sold as riders to existing policies, the insurance company has more flexibility in pricing them. They can charge you a higher premium because you've signaled to the insurer that you have a significantly above-average risk of contracting a specific disease*. Also, the insurer can do a much better job of estimating the expected costs of insuring you since they need only focus on data surrounding one disease. The policy will be priced accordingly, i.e. in such a way that isn't necessarily beneficial to you. Furthermore, most dread disease policies aren't guaranteed renewable, which means that even if you are willing to keep paying the premiums, the insurance company doesn't have to keep insuring you. As your risk of developing the specific disease grows, e.g. with age, it may pass the point where insuring you is no longer an acceptable risk. The company expects you to develop the illness with the next few renewal cycles, so they decide not to renew your policy. The end result? The insurance company has the premiums you've paid previously, but you no longer have coverage for that illness, and ex post, you've suffered a net loss with no reduction of risk for the foreseeable future. Dread disease policies are changing under the Affordable Care Act. According to healthcare.gov Starting in 2014, ... all new health insurance plans sold to individuals and small businesses, and plans purchased in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges, must include a range of essential health benefits. The essential health benefits include quite a few areas of coverage; since this applies to policies offered on the state insurance exchanges and those offered outside of it, dread disease policies wouldn't seem to qualify. For more information, you can read the linked page on healthcare.gov or see Section 1302, subsection b), titled \"\"Essential Health Benefits Requirements\"\" in the law itself (p87). I imagine more details will be available on a state-by-state basis through 2014 and into 2015. One legal source (see the discussion on p24) states that: whatever else the ACA does with excepted benefit policies, including specific disease and fixed dollar indemnity policies, it does explicitly provide that such policies do not count as minimum essential coverage for purposes of the ACA This seems pretty straightforward; a dread disease (or \"\"specific disease\"\" policy, as it's referred to in the article), won't count towards the minimum essential requirements. This may not be an issue for you, but for others, it's important to understand that you'll still need to pay the penalty if you only purchase one of these policies. The ACA spells this out in Section 5000(f) (see p316, which states that \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" are excluded and defines them using the definition in the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). **The PSHA specifically includes \"\"Coverage only for a specified disease or illness\"\" in their definition of \"\"excepted benefit policies\"\" (see section 2791(b), paragraph 3A on p82, so it's probably a safe bet that such policies won't count towards the minimum. Also, as Rick pointed out in the comments, the Affordable Care Act also forbids lifetime limits on most insurance plans, so assuming you find an insurance policy with adequate coverage for the specific disease you're worried about, such a plan should cover the related expenses without a lifetime limit. Deductibles, annual limits, and other factors may complicate this somewhat. In the section about lifetime limits (Sec. 2711, p2), the Affordable Care Act states that: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish ... lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. However, the law states in the next paragraph that the preceding statement should not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits that are not essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law The section also contains similarly vague caveats about annual limits, so the actual details and limits may vary once individual states finalize their policies. The law is intentionally vague because the vast majority of the law's implementation is left up to individual states. Furthermore, certain parts of the law specify actions involving the Secretary of Health and Human Services, so these may require further codification in the future too. You should still read the fine print of any insurance policy you buy and evaluate it as you would any contract (see the next section). Since a dread disease policy probably isn't a good idea, you'll probably want to evaluate the healthcare plans offered by your employer or individual plans offered in your area (if your employer doesn't offer coverage). I've tried to include the basic points offered in these articles to give you or future visitors some idea of where to start. These points may change once the Affordable Care Act is implemented, so I'll try to keep them as general as possible. Services - Above and beyond the minimum essential requirements, what services does the plan offer? Are these services a good match for you and/or your family, or do they add unnecessary cost to the premium with little or no benefit? For example, my health insurance plan offers basic dental coverage with a small co-pay, so I don't need a separate dental plan, even though my employer offers one. Choice - What doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. are preferred providers under your plan? Do you need a referral from your primary care doctor to see a specialist, or can you find one on your own? Are the preferred providers convenient for you? In my first year of college (about five years ago), my student health insurance only covered a few hospitals that were in the suburbs and somewhat difficult for me to reach. This is something to keep in mind, depending on where you live. Costs - This is a major one, obviously. Deductibles, copays, maximum cost limits over a year or your lifetime, out-of-network costs, etc. are all variables to consider. There are other factors, but since I don't have a family, other members of the site can provide more detailed information about what to look for in family policies. In place of a dread disease policy, you're likely better off purchasing a comprehensive health insurance policy, perhaps a catastrophic coverage policy with a high deductible that will kick in once you've exhausted your standard insurance policy. However, this may be a moot point since the passage of the Affordable Care Act may significantly reduce the availability of such policies anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b3fafaa967083f6341aed5116b52e70", "text": "There is not necessarily a need to prevent what you describe - 'turning insurance on before high risk situations'. They just need to calculate the premiums accordingly. For example, if an insurance needs to take 50$/year for insuring your house against flood, and a flood happens in average every 10 years, if you just insure the two weeks in the ten years where heavy rain is predicted, you might pay 500$ for the two weeks. The total is the same for the insurance - they get 500$, and you get insurance for the dangerous period. In the contrary; if a flooding (unexpectedly) happens outside your two weeks, they are out. From the home owners view, 500$ for two weeks when heavy rains and floods are expected, and nothing otherwise sounds pretty good, compared to 50$ every year. It is the same of course, but psychology works that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f4219e263cad0c119c6be7b5291bed7", "text": "\"This is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, in the way you wrote the question the answer is no. Essentially, you would be asking someone to give you a ~20% return for your cash on something that is almost guaranteed when holding your cash only gets them a <1% return. Would anyone take the other side of that deal? Interestingly though, you can to some extent hedge surprises in health care costs. For instance, investing in the healthcare industry as David Rice suggests is a partial hedge. The prices of those industry stocks already has future expected cost increases included. However, if costs were to jump even higher than expected you would gain some of the added cost you would pay in healthcare back. Not that I recommend this strategy, as you lose diversification, but this is a valid and reasonable reason to slightly overweight american healthcare companies for someone in your situation. Note that the Wiki article you mention talks about hedging surprises as well. \"\"If at planting time the farmer sells a number of wheat futures contracts equivalent to his anticipated crop size, he effectively locks in the price of wheat at that time.\"\" Thinking that way you may actually be able to buy health insurance now for two or three years in the future essentially locking in expected price increases today. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but the best analogy for what financial hedging truly does.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a", "text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b2c8d6ebf9c7433fb9314fbe40d61cd", "text": "Theres obviously a ton of licensing/certifications that go into an insurance company. I'm wondering anyone has experience with a start up or small insurance company and can speak to the pros and cons of it. More specifically, is there a certain rule about how much money should be set aside as float assuming a policy limit of 10 million? I'd imagine it depends on the type of coverage to a large degree. Just beginning to start the process of researching this based on an unexpected bit of news/opportunity. Thanks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ab3e118c60058987f14696f65d3471e", "text": "\"You don't mention what kind of insurance you're talking about, but I'll just address one angle on the question. For some kinds of insurance, such as health insurance (in the US), auto insurance, and homeowner's insurance, you may be insuring against an event that you would not be able to pay for without the insurance. For instance, if you are at fault in a car accident and injure someone, they could sue you for $100,000. A lot of people don't have $100,000. So it's not even a matter of \"\"I'll take the risk of having to pay it when the time comes\"\"; if the time comes, you could lose virtually everything you own and still have to pay more from future earnings. You're not just paying $X to offset a potential loss of $Y; you're paying $X to offset a potential derailment of your entire life. It is plausible that you could assign a reasonable monetary value to that potential \"\"cost\"\" that would mean you actually come out ahead in the insurance equation. It is with smaller expenses (such as insuring a new cellphone against breakage) that insurance becomes harder to justify. When the potential nonfinancial \"\"collateral damage\"\" of a bad event are less, you must justify the insurance expenses on the financial consequences only, which, as you say, is often difficult.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be2cae6c13606d7d4653c326d5ad553d", "text": "If you can not support yourself should your father die, an insurance policy may make sense as a safety net. As an investment, it is a bad bet unless he knows something about his health that would somehow not cause his premiums to be increased tremendously yet not cause them to claim he was attempting to defraud them and refuse payment. In other words, it is a bad bet, period. Insurance is a tool. If the tool doesn't do something you specifically need, it's the wrong tool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec14b01f26939b3b715582b7563c1223", "text": "\"You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a \"\"possible sales value\"\" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your \"\"net worth\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3e161a6fad72565791ce18f3a01365a7", "text": "The plan doesn't make sense. Don't invest your money. Just keep it in your bank account. $5000 is not a lot, especially since you don't have a steady income stream. You only have $1000 to your name, you can't afford to gamble $4000. You will need it for things like food, books, rent, student loans, traveling, etc. If you don't get a job right after you graduate, you will be very happy to have some money in the bank. Or what if you get a dream job, but you need a car? Or you get a job at a suit & tie business and need to get a new wardrobe? Or your computer dies and you need a new one? You find a great apartment but need $2500 first, last & security? That money can help you out much more NOW when you're starting out, then it will when you're ready to retire in your 60's.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f094f4d137e563cb3b3263b5ac6a04c4", "text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cee6e71109f10119db7802a34754b56e", "text": "I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edfda479cd3187bb936a5557781d157", "text": "I think it's great idea. Many large brokerages give customers access to a pretty sizable list of zero commission, zero load funds. In this list of funds will certainly be an S&P 500 index. So you can open your account for free, deposit your $1,000 for free and invest it in an S&P index for no cost. You'll pay a very negligible amount in annual expense fees and you'll owe taxes on your gain if you have to use the money. I don't follow the school of thought that all investment money should be in retirement account jail. But I think if you have your spending under control, you have your other finances in order and just want to place money somewhere, you're on the right track with this idea.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4859371019fb658e3329ef6ae84522fb", "text": "\"the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest. particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.). and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are \"\"rich\"\" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows. while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10ac79d2ac6be5c20574e7d20547be22", "text": "\"You have a few correlated questions here: Yes you can. There are only a few investment strategies that require a minimum contribution and those aren't ones that would get a blanket recommendation anyway. Investing in bonds or stocks is perfectly possible with limited funds. You're never too young to start. The power of interest means that the more time you give your money to grow, the larger your eventual gains will be (provided your investment is beating inflation). If your financial situation allows it, it makes sense to invest money you don't need immediately, which brings us to: This is the one you have to look at most. You're young but have a nice chunk of cash in a savings account. That money won't grow much and you could be losing purchasing power to inflation but on the other hand that money also isn't at risk. While there are dozens of investment options1 the two main ones to look at are: bonds: these are fixed income, which means they're fairly safe, but the downside is that you need to lock up your money for a long time to get a better interest rate than a savings account index funds that track the market: these are basically another form of stock where each share represents fractions of shares of other companies that are tracked on an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq. These are much riskier and more volatile, which is why you should look at this as a long-term investment as well because given enough time these are expected to trend upwards. Look into index funds further to understand why. But this isn't so much about what you should invest in, but more about the fact that an investment, almost by definition, means putting money away for a long period of time. So the real question remains: how much can you afford to put away? For that you need to look at your individual situation and your plans for the future. Do you need that money to pay for expenses in the coming years? Do you want to save it up for college? Do you want to invest and leave it untouched to inspire you to keep saving? Do you want to save for retirement? (I'm not sure if you can start saving via IRAs and the like at your age but it's worth looking into.) Or do you want to spend it on a dream holiday or a car? There are arguments to be made for every one of those. Most people will tell you to keep such a \"\"low\"\" sum in a savings account as an emergency fund but that also depends on whether you have a safety net (i.e. parents) and how reliable they are. Most people will also tell you that your long-term money should be in the stock market in the form of a balanced portfolio of index funds. But I won't tell you what to do since you need to look at your own options and decide for yourself what makes sense for you. You're off to a great start if you're thinking about this at your age and I'd encourage you to take that interest further and look into educating yourself on the investments options and funds that are available to you and decide on a financial plan. Involving your parents in that is sensible, not in the least because your post-high school plans will be the most important variable in said plan. To recap my first point and answer your main question, if you've decided that you want to invest and you've established a specific budget, the size of that investment budget should not factor into what you invest it in. 1 - For the record: penny stocks are not an investment. They're an expensive form of gambling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7776d8529615f03d3a1ff066204e2e5", "text": "I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188dd86c3c336b20a110fb5413285e31", "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\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e67e45b5854d2f1613136954e4faf30", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8abab3a7c58f602a64ee42553c53c2d9", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a65594a18d3dd998b566955e0836c790", "text": "If you're sure you want to go the high risk route: You could consider hot stocks or even bonds for companies/countries with lower credit ratings and higher risk. I think an underrated cost of investing is the tax penalties that you pay when you win if you aren't using a tax advantaged account. For your speculating account, you might want to open a self-directed IRA so that you can get access to more of the high risk options that you crave without the tax liability if any of those have a big payout. You want your high-growth money to be in a Roth, because it would be a shame to strike it rich while you're young and then have to pay taxes on it when you're older. If you choose not to make these investments in a tax-advantaged account, try to hold your stocks for a year so you only get taxed at capital gains rates instead of as ordinary income. If you choose to work for a startup, buy your stock options as they vest so that if the company goes public or sells privately, you will have owned those stocks long enough to qualify for capital gains. If you want my actual advice about what I think you should do: I would increase your 401k percentage to at least 10% with or without a match, and keep that in low cost index funds while you're young, but moving some of those investments over to bonds as you get closer to retirement and your risk tolerance declines. Assuming you're not in the 25% tax bracket, all of your money should be in a Roth 401k or IRA because you can withdraw it without being taxed when you retire. The more money you put into those accounts now while you are young, the more time it all has to grow. The real risk of chasing the high-risk returns is that when you bet wrong it will set you back far enough that you will lose the advantage that comes from investing the money while you're young. You're going to have up and down years with your self-selected investments, why not just keep plugging money into the S&P which has its ups and downs, but has always trended up over time?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "319ecafcdb8a3aec5bded1d3b26698c9", "text": "First, welcome to Money.SE. If you are interested in saving and investing, this is a great site to visit. Please take the tour and just start to read the questions you find interesting. 1 - even though this is hypothetical, it scales down to an average investor. If I own 1000 shares of the 1 billion, am I liable if the company goes under? No. Stocks don't work that way. If all I have is shares, not a short position, not options, I can only see my investment go to zero. 2 - Here, I'd ask that you edit your country in the tags. I can tell you that my newborn (who is soon turning 17) had a stock account in her name when she was a few months old. It's still a custodian account, meaning an adult has to manage it, and depending on the state within the US, the age that it's hers with no adult, is either 18 or 21. Your country may have similar regional rules. Also - each country has accounts specifically geared toward retirement, with different favorable rules regarding taxation. In the US, we have accounts that can be funded at any age, so long as there's earned income. My daughter started one of these accounts when she started baby sitting at age 12. She will have more in her account by the time she graduates college than the average retiree does. It's good for her, and awful for the general population that this is the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baef691dc7ff5863b8a6717410737bea", "text": "\"While you want it to grow faster than inflation, there are things like I-bonds that can carry some inflation protection with them for an idea that may make sense for part of this. There are now some more details and I'd think this seems alright initially though I would suggest considering having some kind of on-going plan to handle periodically seeing how much more to invest here and what kind of taxes will this generate for you as taxable accounts can carry a mix of dividends, interest and capital gains that you may have to pay even though you didn't see the gain yourself. Keep in mind that if you do go with a big-name investment bank, this could well add more fees as well as other stuff. Lehman Brothers was a big name investment bank once upon a time and they went broke. While you may want to be hands-off, I'd still suggest having some kind of timeline for how often are your investments to be reviewed and things re-allocated. Each quarter, semi-annually, or annual? There isn't so much a right or wrong answer here as much as I'd point out that one should be aware of the trade-offs in each case. If you take annual and wonder each week how it is doing, then something a bit more frequent may make sense. On the other hand, some people may well \"\"set it and forget it\"\" which can work as long as there is something to know about where to go if something does go broke. As these are managed investments, the SIPC check I'd make may not hold though this would be the equivalent of FDIC for deposits when dealing with securities. The REIT can be useful for diversification, sure. You do realize that there may be some interesting taxes for you in the next few years given the nature of a REIT investment, right? The \"\"Return of Capital\"\" that a REIT may pass through as a REIT to maintain its tax status must distribute 90% of its net income each year that can be quite a off shoot of funds. Where would those proceeds be invested? This isn't mentioned in your post and thus I'm curious as if the REIT passes out a dividend yield of say 5% then this is $2,000/year that could go somewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db1ccbc57a778e7a93f06a6a95ab0dde", "text": "\"Consultant, I commend you for thinking about your financial future at such an early age. Warren Buffet, arguably the most successful investor ever lived, and the best known student of Ben Graham has a very simple advice for non-professional investors: \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.)\"\" This quote is from his 2013 letter to shareholders. Source: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2013ltr.pdf Buffet's annual letters to shareholders are the wealth of useful and practical wisdom for building one's financial future. The logic behind his advice is that most investors cannot consistently pick stock \"\"winners\"\", additionally, they are not able to predict timing of the market; hence, one has to simply stay in the market, and win over in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883c1dcbb0385662c5cdd009952764cc", "text": "Dollar Cost Averaging would be the likely balanced approach that I'd take. Depending on the size of the sum, I'd likely consider a minimum of 3 and at most 12 points to invest the funds to get them all working. While the sum may be large relative to my net worth, depending on overall scale and risk tolerance I could see doing it in a few rounds of purchasing or I could see taking an entire year to deploy the funds in case of something happening. I'd likely do monthly investments myself though others may go for getting more precise on things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fe0703305a3f003fdb6704d235718cf", "text": "\"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0", "text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "987eae0d63dd48045d0cd55b10e90597", "text": "You're certainly still responsible to pay what you owe the company given that: 1. for whatever reason, the recipient never received the checks. and 2. the money was credited back to you, albeit in a less than timely manner. However, if you take the time to explain the situation to the business, and show them proof that you sent the payments I would guess they would probably be willing to work with you on removing any late fees you have been assessed or possibly setting up a payment plan. Also, if you have been charged any overdraft or minimum balance fees by your bank while they held your money for the payments that was eventually credited back to your account, you might be able to get them to refund those if you explain what has happened. This is really a perfect example though of why balancing your checking account is as important today as it ever was.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7d886d70fde7e58daf8a86ac00e1884c", "text": "Nowadays, all checks you write will not be send to your bank anymore, but instead the bank where they get deposited does an ACH from your bank. That implies that not allowing this to happen, your bank would not be able to honor any checks you wrote (without enforcing paper check delivery in the mail, but the Check21 bill does not allow such enforcing anymore). Basically, your bank would not be able to do business with anyone. The obvious conclusion is that no such bank exists.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73f5e6a099898a75ebca0e1e112713da", "text": "The legal department at the Bank left me a message telling me that the bank check was paid & the recipient got the funds. Call up the bank and find out who the recipient was. Generally it can only be cashed by the person whose name is on it - the original business partner to whom it was intended. It is unlikely to be cashed by the attorney, unless he misrepresented the facts to the bank and got the funds. My question is how could he have cashed it without the original bank check? The other possibility is your mom lost this check, went to the bank and requested them to cancel this and reissue a fresh banker's check and give it to the business partner - in which case the check you had was worthless. You would need to work with the bank and ask them for details. However without the details of the original bank check that you found, it would be difficult for the bank to help you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502", "text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67a6bbba7f13b2a6635133848ebf9e54", "text": "I receive checks from my tenant. Also, from our medical reimbursement account. I'm sure there's an option somewhere to get that direct deposited, just haven't yet. My wife will write checks for school functions. Funny, they haven't cashed one since february, and this is the one item to look for every time I reconcile her account. A few select others don't take credit or debit cards. Our tailor (losing weight, needed pants pulled in), among others. The number of checks is surely down an order of magnitude over the years, but still not zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8b9bfb84f528142ec6933b5923e29e1", "text": "\"Its a classic sign of fraud. The fraud is on you. You cashed the check not given to you, and not endorsed by the person its given to, so even if the check is legit you're still in trouble. There are many variations of this scheme, but the common thing is that the \"\"innocent\"\" third party is given a check to cash, and gives its own check or cash in return. The check ends up being forged, stolen, or otherwise invalid, but the cash/check the third party gave is long gone. Usually its cash, because its untraceable. You should wait at least a couple of weeks to make sure the check doesn't bounce. You might want to contact the check owner to verify its legit, and suggest to return the money, if it is not. You might also want to consult with an attorney. Bear in mind, that it might be reported to the authorities as a money laundering scheme (which it very well might be), and you'll have some explaining to do in this case, even if the check is legit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55fa76b19c951b25835e30a46c84191b", "text": "\"Although banks do not have to honor checks that are more than six months old, they often do. Limit Noted on Check. Many large corporations put the length of time that a check is valid on the face of their checks. For example, a check may state, Valid for 90 days from this date\"\" or \"\"Not valid after 180 days.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bb6d5c5b9d7ef1d33fcf8f7c07e2e5a", "text": "For the first case to occur, you need to have an agreement in place with the bank, this is called overdraft protection. It's done at a cost, but cheaper than the potential series of bounce fees. I've never heard of the second choice, partial payment. That's not to say that it's not possible. The payment not made is called a bounced check, you and the recipient will be harmed a fee. I believe it's a felony to write bad checks. Good to not write a check unless there's a positive balance taking that check into account. As Dilip suggests, ask your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06d8ab67711673601cf3eaaf45b9519a", "text": "\"You can try writing on the back of the check, in the signature area, \"\"For deposit only to account xxxxxxxxx\"\", leaving room for the signature. This may or may not be legally binding, but it states your intnt and is in a form the bank will recognize.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a161cd359abe82b21405c3261005f3c4", "text": "\"This may vary some by the state, but the general facts are consistent broadly. The elements of check fraud typically are: This means that not only do you have to have presented a check that is returned for insufficient funds, but you must have known at the time that it wouldn't be honored. It must typically also be given for present consideration, which is why the comments to the other answer correctly note that the post-dated check \"\"scam\"\" cooked up by the payday loan folks shouldn't generally be relevant under these laws; on the same site, they note the cases that are clearly not present consideration: So if I give you a check for $50 and it's returned for NSF because I screwed up my bank accounts and had all my money in savings, that's probably not fraud. But if I decide I really want a Tesla X and give Tesla Motors a check for $95,000, knowing I don't have $95,000, that's fraud. How the prosecutor proves knowledge is probably beyond the scope of Personal Finance and Money Stack Exchange, though I imagine it tends to commonly be done so by showing the person doesn't normally have that much money in their account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b7094cbe852a7f8c2f98dfcf51e0655", "text": "\"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link \"\"Invoice\"\" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do. Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment. From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up. I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices? From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly. When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to: So that account should show a balance once you have posted it: Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2b8102999ce0df2fd34e8a6903b8900", "text": "The store wants their money back. It's understandable that they are hesitant to accept another check from you. So if you don't have the cash to pay them back, take your good check somewhere else to cash it, and use that money to pay back the store that you gave the bad check to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16", "text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c970e9e4752025f14c6a88559265046", "text": "\"The store owners don't know what your intentions are. All they know is they gave you good cash for a bad check. Part of this is that you're paying for the bad acts of others in the past, and these people aren't in the business of trying to understand your intentions. If you show good faith by going in and paying whatever you can, it will go a long way toward getting them to work with you on the balance. I don't know if they'd have much of a criminal case if the check you gave them was clearly marked as \"\"void\"\" and you've shown a willingness to resolve the situation. Of course you can't blame them for not wanting to accept another check from you. Good old hard cash, even if it isn't the full amount, will be a better sign of your intent to repay the debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea", "text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98556545e99fddd04d0a07dcf079005", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4a43b5590ae06162d3a7946e1e638d36", "text": "Couple of my friends went through a fraud agent who ran off with their money and the landlords were none the wiser. So it always pays to be a bit diligent. Are they a well known letting agents nationally ? Many agents do have different accounts to manage their properties. Yours seems a case as such probably i.e. they manage the property on behalf of the landlord so keeping their monies differentiated. Did you sign an agreement ? If yes go through what is written in the agreement, most of it is same in all agreements but have a look anyway. Check if there is mention of deposit protection scheme. One thing you could do is go to a bank to do the transfer, the same bank where the letting agent holds their account and confirm from them if it is really a personal account or a business account. I am not sure how possible it is, but doesn't hurt to ask. If it is a personal account, then fraud is the most possible cause. The sort code should tell you which branch and which bank. Or the best option is to ask the estate agents to show a recent statement of the bank account, where the money is to be deposited into. Some tips", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2a221dfeaebe9b45988e90b16481a57", "text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. This is idiocy. They receive regular payments. They are asking the people who pay them to regularly change where their money is being sent. This increases their exposure to fraud dramatically as each time the account is changed, there is a risk it will be changed to an account they do not control. This is a huge red flag. Confirm that this is authentic and, if so, insist that they sign an agreement accepting all liability for the risks this crazy policy causes, otherwise, you should refuse to go through the effort of confirming new accounts and risking typing or communication errors on a regular basis. This is definitely a \"\"what were they thinking?!\"\" kind of thing. If it's not fake entirely. (This answer assumes that you were given a correct explanation, that they change it regularly believing that will reduce fraud.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b79473bb909aae086d116bb059928e44", "text": "To be absolutely sure you should call the agent and check That said I have been renting accommodation through both agencies and directly through landlords for seven years (I live in London) and this is quite a common situation. It normally means that the deposit is being securely held by a third party so that it cannot be taken or depleted without the agreement of both parties. The deposit protection scheme ( https://www.depositprotection.com/ ) is one way that deposits are securely held in this manner. As a third party they will have different account details. It may be the case that the agency is protecting the deposit and you are paying rent to the landlord directly. This means that your deposit goes to the agency's account and the rent goes to the landlord's account. Obviously your landlord and agency have different accounts. A little colour to brighten your day: I am currently paying my rent to the agency who also took the deposit but, because of the way they handle deposits versus rent, the deposit was sent to a different account held by the same agent. In my previous flat I paid the deposit to an agency and the rent directly to the landlord. This resulted in an issue one time where I got the two accounts confused and paid rent to the agency who, after giving me a small slap on the wrist, transferred it to my landlord. In the flat before that I paid rent and the deposit to my landlords' holding company. That is one of the few times that I paid rent and the deposit into the same account. Again check with the agent that one of these situations is the case but this is absolutely normal when renting through an agency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5462c5440487993203311af78d85f3d5", "text": "\"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. If you're absolutely sure you didn't just send money to a scammer impersonating a landlord, this has nothing to do with fraud-- they're playing a game with you. By changing the account number frequently, it makes it more likely you make a mistake in entering the payment account. When they come back to you a few days past due saying \"\"we never received your rent,\"\" you'll eventually realize it got sent to the wrong account. Now you owe them late fees, and there's really nothing you can do about it-- you did not in fact pay them on time; you sent it to the wrong account! It's an easy way for them to collect an additional few thousand dollars a year. Anytime a small business or landlord says they have to do something \"\"weird\"\" to reduce fraud, chances are it's a pretense to you getting hosed in some way.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "67c16553eb107f3a09a363b409f3429c", "text": "Although I do not know about US Institutions; In India Banks have adopted a mix of features that mitigate the risk. Some ways that are used are;", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac821b70be2c004e997630792a7b8877", "text": "There are two unique identifiers for a bank account: SWIFT code + bank internal identifier, or IBAN code. IBAN is mostly used within European banking system, and the whole code provides a direct and unique identification of the account. SWIFT is an international network where each bank/bank branch has its own address, and account number is a metadata added to the message for the receiving bank to handle. Usually the name of the recipient and additional information are required when wiring money through the SWIFT network, to match the records and make sure there's no mistake. Account numbers don't have to be unique, not even within the same bank. There's always something else in addition to uniquely identify them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dcfca74c7468d514f1fcd2ea1efdb83", "text": "I believe it is so. It doesn't sound like they did anything outright illegal, just a pushy upsell. You can complain to the bank manager. If you want you can mention the employee by name (if you know who they are). Ultimately, you can change banks. From what you say it sounds like you are dissatisfied with this bank, so I think you should at least begin evaluating other banks and consider switching. You can also let your current bank know you are planning to take all your money away from them specifically because of their poor customer service. You could consider filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau alleging that the bank engaged in some kind of deceptive marketing of their financial products. Of course you can also file a complaint with something like the Better Business Bureau, or even just write a negative Yelp review. But these actions won't really result in any penalty for the bank as a result of what they did in your specific case; they just express your dissatisfaction in a way that will be recorded and possibly made public (e.g., in a list of complaints) to protect future consumers. If you're really gung-ho and have time and money to burn, you could hire a lawyer and get legal advice about whether it is possible to sue the bank for fraud or misuse of your personal information. Needless to say, I think this would be overkill for this situation. I would just cancel the credit card, tell the bank you're dissatisfied, switch banks, and move on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d16ce2d564ec8d4ba4693beacc3f424", "text": "If the checking account is in a FDIC insured bank or a NCUA insured Credit Union then you don't have to worry about what happens if the bank goes out of business. In the past the government has made sure that any disruption was minimal. The fraud issue can cause a bigger problem. If they get a hold of your debit card, they can drain your account. Yes the bank gives you fraud protection so that the most you can lose is $50 or $500; many even make your liability $0 if you report it in a timely manor. But there generally is a delay in getting the money put back in your account. One way to minimize the problem is to open a savings account,it also has the FDIC and NCUA coverage . The account may even earn a little interest. If you don't allow the bank to automatically provide an overdraft transfer from savings to checking account, then the most they can temporarily steal is your checking account balance. Getting a credit card can provide additional protection. It also limits your total losses if there is fraud. The bill is only paid once a month so if they steal the card or the number, they won't be able to drain the money in the bank account. The credit card, if used wisely can also start to build a positive credit file so that in a few years you can get a loan for a car or a place to live. Of course if they steal your entire wallet with both the credit and the debit card...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bbcc5182b857524b23283bcdab578ac", "text": "If you're worried about the account number just take a statement and black out the account number with a Sharpie or the like. That is if the account number even appears on it, these days it often doesn't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd91ac9a13ba443f8dd0b2a5af1598d9", "text": "You will probably not be able to figure out the bank from the account number. You can check for your name on registries of abandoned bank accounts or unclaimed money, but without more information, you don't have a lot of options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9a8b8c4c7721475273f9e7d3459add0", "text": "Every bank has uses their own number ranges and assigns account numbers as they like. That means that the same account number could be in use by basically every bank simultaneously - which makes it impossible to find out the bank from the account number. A similar situation would be to find a street name from the house number - obviously, there are many streets that have a given number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85c8b5fc25546611c4d7aa05d80c5060", "text": "\"It's pretty easy for foreign scammers to get a US phone number or email. A domestic bank account is a little harder. Very likely the direct contact is a US citizen or a legal immigrant. The Nigerian may be completely made-up to throw you off the scent. And that person can be found, dunned, or deported, and there's even a small chance of reversing the bank transfers. It's also hard for foreign scammers to sound American on the phone, again suggesting a domestic scam or one with domestic agents. If you or your son is willing to do a serious amount of skill-building and legwork, you can uncover evidence by filing a lawsuit. Once you have done so, you can use the legal processes of discovery to force banks etc. to give you information they would never give willingly. There are countless details. Lawyers get paid to get the details right. Suing actual people can backfire, they can countersue. But since you do not know their real name, you would probably be filing a \"\"John Doe\"\" lawsuit. \"\"John Doe\"\" is a placeholder: the idea being that you will later, through discovery, uncover the defendants' real names. For a novice exploring the legal system for the first time, there's a big advantage - John Doe never countersues or quashes, he never gets in your way or wastes your time... heck, he never even shows up in court! And when you collect evidence via discovery, you can take that to law enforcement or immigration. It goes without sayi-- well, there's no need to go into that. Just realize you did goof, and make sure you learn the lessons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63bcbc146bddda345cf91dbc20cc10e5", "text": "In many countries it is a legal requirement or in some other way mandatory for the banks to ban the owner(s) of an account to allow a third party to use the account. In some countries if you willing give someone access in this way you get no compensation what so ever and you'll be lucky if they catch the crooks and even luckier if you get any of your money back. Don't forget the possibility of jail time due to the criminal activities going on under your name.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf9c27dcd6ececc521e3e36e3051ec44", "text": "SpecKK's answer is excellent, I've only got two things to add: When your creditors change your account number, make sure to update your online information. You're not sending back a coupon, so it's up to you to make sure it has the new number and gets posted to the correct account. If your bank supports it, give the creditors good labels/nicknames. If you have names that are similar, it's easy to send a payment to the wrong place -- this may not be easy to detect and is a hassle to straighten out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9825f66ddff2952845d37a42b68709f", "text": "\"I live in Kenya, and also here we have corruption. However, we use EFT, RTGS, Mobile Money and its more safe than cheques. Beware, that paper based payments cost you way more than anything electronic. Often the bank charge you for the cheque book, they charge for receiving paper based payment instruments, and settlement is often a day or two, while mobile/electronic settlement is instant. Seen from a tenants perspective, its also easier. Imagine too, the small likelihood that you loose the cheques from your tenants? Your fear for your account is understandable, but you may need to learn a little now, about how accounts are handled. In an online community only the persons with the necessary electronic credentials can withdraw from your account, being it online via your screen, or at the cashier, or by other means. Therefore, your money are safer via the electronic means. The cause of your concern / unease can be that you are relinquishing your control from a paper-based, visible system, into a system which you may not know so much about, maybe because of that you have not done so much on computers, yet. As a most recent caveat, though, don't get into the so called bitcoin technology, it is not safe, and as you saw, most recently, the very owner himself became the perpetrator breaking his very own bank by artificially inflating amounts on his own account, according to Japanese authorities. Now, electronic banking has been in existence since soon 40 years. Its based on cash, so behind the scenes, between the banks, huge deposits of cash are being moved physically, around from vault to vault, in the bank's money exchange / transaction settlement system. Thereby, a bank does not need to physically transfer money from one physical bank building to another - as they have huge loads of cash stashed in central depositories, between which they can now exchange money as compensation for cheques and electronic transfers. So, behind the scene of the electronic world, there are still physical cash being moved around, deep under the ground, in such vaults. I hope this has given you a little bit of confidence in the \"\"modern times\"\". If you have further questions, you are welcome. These were my 50 cents :-). My background is in software development, where I have worked on banking systems for more than 10 years, making banking systems, as part of huge teams, working for the largest banks in the world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dba2b8b6ff34a67ab2d2fc51c37304d6", "text": "You should talk to your bank and explain what happened. Your bank may contact vendor bank to discuss the account, but really that is up to them. Then you should contact your police department and report the fraud. Realistically, your chances of recovering any money is negligible. I think your best chance is convincing your bank to work with vendor bank on a reversal(if it was a domestic transfer), although it is more likely that the vendor bank account is already empty and closed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6ee0268f820bc54c4686272f14fe567", "text": "Generally just giving a Bank Account Number does not cause damage. It depends on what other information the user has and the country you are in. Generally Bank take telephone instruction for certain [non-transactional] activities , and they would authenticate you by asking account number, address, date of birth and some additional info. In today's world this info can be pretty easily accessible, for example facebook or a details posted on Jobsites etc. It is best avoided to give the bank account details, unless you are sure of the person. Typical other misuse is using your bank account to Launder black money. The typical modus is transfer funds to you and then ask you to transfer it elsewhere. At times its also a scam and you loose money as they trick you in sending money before you receive it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a688faf4d3c64d1c61c6ff3d1e8d183", "text": "ATMs have had repeated attack vectors over the years they have proved to be quite vulnerable over and over. Worse than that many of the attacks haven't been fixed either, its only secrecy of the attack vectors that save them. But that isn't an us issue, its an issue for the bank and if they loose money due to hacks then that happens and it impacts on their profits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e28a61090dd27438f9dca6c582fb29c", "text": "Your plan isn't bad, but it probably isn't worth the cost for the small amount of credit building it will achieve. If you do decide to continue with it though, you'll save in interest if you make the big payment now rather than in 6 months. In other words, you can take the minimum payment, multiply it by 5, subtract that amount from the total you owe and pay the difference immediately. This way you'll still get the 6 months of reporting to the credit bureaus, but you'll pay less interest since you'll have less principle each month. I would recommend applying for the credit card right now. I believe you'll probably get approved now. If you do, then pay off the car loan without thinking about it. (If you don't get approved, think about it, then probably still pay it off.) Regarding the full coverage insurance, even after the loan is paid off and you aren't required to have it, you may still want to keep it. Even if you're the best driver on earth, if someone hits you and doesn't have insurance, or they have insurance and drive off, or a deer runs in front of you, etc, you'll lose your car and won't be reimbursed. Also, as Russell pointed out in the comments below, without collision coverage your insurance company has no incentive to work on your behalf when someone else hits you, so even if it's not your fault you may still not get reimbursed. So, I wouldn't pass on the full coverage unless your car isn't worth very much or you can stomach losing it if something happens. Good luck, and congrats on being able to pay for a car in full at 19 years old.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bbb9c1dab71e1a4e1576c568d093714b", "text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8e0cd198acc054563b2aec379fdbc074", "text": "If you are tired of acting as the bank after selling your Real Estate and owner-financing the loan with a promissory note, we can offer a sound and painless exit strategy today. We can fund the purchase in as little as 15 business days. We at Cash Note USA buy Real Estate Promissory Notes Nationwide. We Purchase Owner Financed Mortgage, Land Contract, Contract For Deed, Deed Of Trust, Private Mortgages, Secured Notes, Business Notes, Commercial Notes and Partial Notes and many kinds of seller carry back mortgage notes. Convert Real Estate Note To Cash Now.Sell Your Mortgage Note Fast &amp; get More Cash For Your Note. You will get a Fair Offer Within 24 Hours.Get your Note cashed today! Cash Note USA is a note buyer all over the nation. Convert your mortgage payments into cash. Simple closing process. We buy Promissory Notes, Real Estate Trust Deeds, Seller Carry Back Notes, Land Contract, Contract for Deed, Privately Help Notes, Commercial Mortgage Notes &amp; Business Promissory Notes. Contact Us: Cash Note USA 1307 W.6th St.Suite 219N, Corona, CA 92882 888-297-4099 [email protected] http://cashnoteusa.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224", "text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c5ac8c41c0019f73a79c19208dd61e", "text": "Have you considered a self-directed IRA to invest, rather than the stock market or publicly traded assets? Your IRA can actually own direct title to real estate, loan money via secured or unsecured promissory notes much like a hard money loan or invest into shares of an entity that invests in real estate. The only nuance is that the IRA holder is responsible for finding and deciding upon the investment vehicle. Just an option outside of the normal parameters, if you have an existing IRA or old 401(k) or other qualified plan, this might be an option for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a121c4f397ec5791d0fcf6b3cbdeb2e", "text": "\"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bd43884a9d185524af6a2230f569e8c", "text": "Your question may have another clue. You are bullish regarding the real estate market. Is that for your city, your state, your nation or for the whole world? Unless you can identify particular properties or neighborhoods that are expected to be better than the average return for your expected bull market in real estate, you will be taking a huge risk. It would be the same as believing that stocks are about to enter a bull market, but then wanting to put 50% of your wealth on one stock. The YTD for the DOW is ~+7%, yet 13 of the 30 have not reached the average increase including 4 that are down more than 7%. Being bullish about the real estate segment still gives you plenty of opportunities to invest. You can invest directly in the REIT or you can invest in the companies that will grow because of the bullish conditions. If your opinion changes in a few years it is hard to short a single property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fac469245c0605d033cba9fca4684cc3", "text": "Reasons for no: In your first sentence you say something interesting: rates low - prices high. Actually those 2 are reversely correlated, imagine if rates would be 5% higher-very few people could buy at current prices so prices would drop. Also you need to keep in mind the rate of inflation that was much higher during some periods in the US history(for example over 10% in the 1980) so you can not make comparisons just based on the nominal interest rate. Putting all your eggs in one basket. If you think real estate is a good investment buy some REITs for 10k, do not spend 20% of your future income for 20 years. Maintenance - people who rent usually underestimate this or do not even count it when making rent vs mortgage comparisons. Reasons for yes: Lifestyle decision - you don't want to be kicked out of your house, you want to remodel... Speculation - I would recommend against this strongly, but housing prices go up and down, if they will go up you can make a lot of money. To answer one of questions directly: 1. My guess is that FED will try to keep rates well bellow 10% (even much lower, since government can not service debts if interest rates go much higher), but nobody can say if they will succeed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6", "text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0ed194077d49ea34d04257f3a56dc3d", "text": "Realistically, it is CDs with longer terms or are callable. You pretty much have to accept more risk if you want higher returns. If you are willing to accept that risk by losing the FDIC protections the next level up is probably high rated Government bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921", "text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d16189759e51343e7ecb4ac89cf8ce81", "text": "would buying the stock of a REIT qualify as a 'Like-Kind' exchange? Short answer, no. Long answer, a 1031 (Starker) exchange only applies to real estate. From the Wikipedia page on the topic: To qualify for Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, the properties exchanged must be held for productive use in a trade or business, or for investment. Stocks, bonds, and other properties are listed as expressly excluded by Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, although securitized properties are not excluded. A REIT, being stock in a real estate company, is excluded from Section 1031.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8920dfc811304724fd604a06d0c91b13", "text": "Ok, have your father 'sell' you the house with a RECORDED land contract for x dollars and a gift of equity(GOE) of y. He writes of the max he can each year for the GOE (ask a tax attorney on this one), and your cousin lends him the money for his FL prop. Consult a tax attorney on the capital gains, but you can write off the actualized gains at sale if you LIVED in the prop for 2 of the last 5 or 7 years (I can't remember) and were on title. Years later, you use the recorded land contract, with the verifiable on time payments you've been making, to a conforming lender and do a R&T refi.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2514f7b41ead8b0f37d702fcf7fbd2", "text": "well yes but you should also begin to understand the sectoral component of real estate as a market too in that there can be commercial property; industrial property and retail property; each of which is capable of having slightly (tho usually similar of course) different returns, yields, and risks. Whereas you are saving to buy and enter into the residential property market which is different again and valuation principles are often out of kilter here because Buying a home although exposing your asset base to real estate risk isnt usually considered an investment as it is often made on emotional grounds not strict investment criteria.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89cc2b6694f315a40c76c1cee002a052", "text": "\"The iShares Barclays Aggregate Bond - ticker AGG, is a ETF that may fit the bill for you. It's an intermediate term fund with annual expenses of .20%. It \"\"seeks investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance, before fees and expenses, of the Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0fd5f580d29bb7dc0d3a235d31ffdf2", "text": "\"All of these frameworks, Markowitz, Mean/CVaR, CARA, etc sit inside a more general framework which is that \"\"returns are good\"\" and \"\"risk/lack of certainty in the returns is bad\"\", and there's a tradeoff between the two encoded as some kind of risk aversion number. You can measure \"\"lack of certainty in returns\"\" by vol, CVaR, weighted sum of higher moments, but even sector/region concentration. Similarly do I want more \"\"returns\"\" or \"\"log returns\"\" or \"\"sqrt returns\"\" in the context of this tradeoff? You don't need any formal notion of utility at that point - and I don't know what formal ideas of utility beyond \"\"I want more returns and less risk\"\" really buys you. The Sharpe ratio only really gets its meaning because you've got some formal asset-pricing notion of utility. In my view the moment that you're putting constraints on the portfolio (e.g. long only, max weights, don't deviate too much from the benchmark ...) - really you're operating in this more general framework anyway and you're not in \"\"utility-land\"\" anymore.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cf4ebb2f45e209ce6aed1eb9814a36ff", "text": "\"Obligatory \"\"Don't do it\"\" remarks: If the guy isn't trusted enough to even show up to work, and can't get a personal loan directly from a bank (Home Equity Line of Credit would suffice), this is really setting things up for failure. What if he quits? What if you need to fire him (you know, for not showing up for weeks)? </rant> In order to be able to place a lien on his home should he default on the loan, you'll need to draft up a loan agreement or promissory note stating specifically that you have the right to do so. Get a lawyer involved. Here's an article that talks about setting up a Private Home Loan, which is geared more at helping someone buy a home, but may prove useful in this case as well: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/borrowing-from-family-friends-buy-29649.html It's pretty lengthy, so I won't quote it out here, but the gist of it is: Get everything in writing in a legally binding contract.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72eed75865cf38a35de154505afa0fe3", "text": "Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6c3d4c6665da2f9ba58598c819e7094d", "text": "I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f92ce53db50ec532e8395af9da6f0bb", "text": "I think you are running into multiple problems here: All these together look like a high risk to a bank, especially right now with companies being reluctant to hire full-time employees. Looking at it from their perspective, the last thing they need right now is another potential foreclosure on their books. BTW, if it is a consolation, I had to prove 2 years of continuous employment (used to be a freelancer) before the local credit union would consider giving me a mortgage. We missed out on a couple of good deals because of that, too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "779300a60e57ff333c291551940b1bbd", "text": "\"Please clarify your question. What do you mean by \"\"..loan in Greece\"\"? If you are referring to taking a mortgage loan to purchase residential property in Greece, there are two factors to consider: If the loan originates from a Greek bank, then odds are likely that the bank will be nationalized by the government if Greece defaults. If the loan is external (i.e. from J.P. Morgan or some foreign bank), then the default will certainly affect any bank that trades/maintains Euros, but banks that are registered outside of Greece won't be nationalized. So what does nationalizing mean for your loan? You will still be expected to pay it according to the terms of the contract. I'd recommend against an adjustable rate contract since rates will certainly rise in a default situation. As for property, that's a different story. There have been reports of violence in Greece already, and if the country defaults, imposes austerity measures, etc, odds are there will be more violence that can harm your property. Furthermore, there is a remote possibility that the government can attempt to acquire your private property. Unlikely, but possible. You could sue in this scenario on property rights violations but things will be very messy from that point on. If Greece doesn't default but just exits the Euro Zone, the situation will be similar. The Drachma will be weak and confidence will be poor, and unrest is a likely outcome. These are not statements of facts but rather my opinion, because I cannot peek into the future. Nonetheless, I would advise against taking a mortgage for property in Greece at this point in time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba18ba31775842e53398358765bef09d", "text": "Construction loans have an entirely set of rules and factors than mortgages and that's hard to reconcile into one instrument. Also, I'm guessing the bank would be a bit shy about giving a commitment to a home loan before they have any information about how the construction process is going. There would have to be a ton of contingencies put into mortgage and they probably can't account for everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e2e2ad27dfc78b189d96ccbc1f54039", "text": "You will not be able to. Here is why you don't have the collateral. You have a car that is probably not worth 10k. Also you probably do not have a simple interest loan. You have to look at your contract. Make sure that there is not early payment fee. Also look for the rule of 78's Explanation of Rule of 78's I can't sugarcoat this chances are you were ripped off because you had bad credit putting you into an even deeper hole.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86ef9962360668eba7a9c6caf07a7265", "text": "Generally speaking, no they won't. In this case, though I haven't done it myself, I was recommended to put the mortgage on the real estate after it's been leased out and has a contract on it. Then, yes, they will use it for that. But, ex-ante don't expect any bank to count on income from it because, at that point, there's zero guarantee you'll get it leased, and even if you do, at what rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d99d9f07d98a490df01d95a11efb58aa", "text": "\"Your assumption is wrong. Land is definitely mortgageable. On the other hand, it may be simpler and attract a lower interest rate if you just mortgage your existing house. (I believe most companies call this \"\"remortgaging\"\" even if you have no existing mortgage). Any loan will be subject to proof that you'll be able to pay it off, like any other mortgage. If the land itself is mortgaged you would need a deposit (i.e. the value of the mortgage would need to be less than the value of the land).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73deb8ce59c254ab3f7158df06349e47", "text": "\"Not unless you have something else to put up as collateral. The bank wants a basic assurance that you're not going to immediately move the money to the Caymans and disappear. 999 times out of 1000, the collateral for a home mortgage is the home itself (which you wouldn't be able to take with you if you decided to disappear), so signing up for a 30 year mortgage on a nonexistent house is probably going to get you laughed out of the bank. It's sometimes possible to negotiate something else as collateral; you may, for instance, have a portfolio of securities worth the loan principal, that you can put in escrow for the term of the loan (the securities will stay in your name and make you money, but if you default on the loan the bank goes to the escrow company and takes the portfolio for their own). The bank will consider the risk of value loss on the securities in the portfolio, and may ask for a higher collateral value or only allow a lower loan amount. In all cases, it's usually a bad idea to go into long-term personal debt just to get \"\"cheap money\"\" that you can use to beat the interest rate with some business plan or investment. If you have a business plan, take that to the bank with an LLC and ask for a business loan. The business itself, if the plan is sound, should become valuable, and the terms of business loans take that into account, allowing for a \"\"shrinking collateral\"\" transferring the initial personal risk of the loan to the business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adeb62f3873388115cae70ccf26f77c7", "text": "Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ad0a10b997fe694ff570c21f460ebae", "text": "Typically the least formal agreement for any type of lending is a Promisory Note (of which you can find plenty across the web, although I'd suggest picking up a Nolo book from the library and using their templates -- I think the book holding your type of form would be the Personal Legal forms Book). Still, $10k is a very large amount of money to lend to a friend and he probably is better off going to a bank and asking for an unsecured line of credit (not a credit card, but rather a general loan) and doing the money that way because typically that amount of money is small to the bank and they will already have the licenses/assets in place to handle collateral and such (which can be very tricky to do on your own).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6ad881959a40ac8ec659db1924860be", "text": "You're never going to get really low interest for an unsecured loan (i.e. without collateral), but if your credit score is excellent, then most banks should give you a decent rate for a personal line of credit. You could inquire at several banks to compare offers. Here in Germany there are also websites that will do such a comparison for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72c6294a241bea25d2691f469ed674e1", "text": "What you are describing is called a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). While the strategy you are describing is not impossible it would raise the amount of debt in your name and reduce your borrowing potential. A recent HELOC used to finance the down payment on a second property risks sending a signal of bad financial position to credit analysts and may further reduce your chances to obtain the credit approval.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001ad7f8030aa55b992aab75c2bd3b7d", "text": "This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e6b3c3d49316238ac8a589d1dd171d9", "text": "\"The problem here can be boiled down to that fact you are attempting to obtain a loan without collateral. There are times it can be done, but you have to have a really good relationship with a banker. Your question suggests that avenue has been exhausted. You are looking for an investor, but you are offering something very speculative. Suppose an investor gives you 20K, what recourse does he have if you do not pay the terms of the loan? From what income will this be paid from? What event will trigger the capability to make a balloon payment? Now if you can find a really handy guy that really needs a place to live could you swap rent for repairs? Maybe. Perhaps you buy the materials, and he does the roof in exchange for 6 months worth of rent or whatever. If you approached me with this \"\"investment\"\", the thing that would raise a red flag is why don't you have 20K to do this yourself? If you don't how will you be able to make payments? For example of the items you mentioned: That is a weekend worth of work and some pretty inexpensive materials. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? A weekend worth of demo, and $500 worth of material and another weekend to build something serviceable for a rental. Why does money need to be borrowed for this? 2K? Why does money need to be borrowed for this? This can be expensive, but most roofing companies offer financing. Also doing some of the work yourself can save a ton of money. Demoing an old roof is typically about 1/3 of the roofing cost and is technically simple, but physically difficult. So besides the new roof, you could have a lot of your list solved for less than 3K and three weekends worth of work. You are attempting to change this into a rental, not the Taj Mahal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd40fec317928dc6104dc709adb7b007", "text": "On $4K/mo gross about $1000/mo can go to the mortgage, and at today's rates, that's about $200K of mortgage the bank might lend you. Income is qualified based on gross, not net, so if $48,000/yr is wrong, please scale my guesstimate down a bit. In the end, today's rates allow a mortgage of nearly 4X one's gross income. This is too high, in my opinion. I'm answering what the bank would approve you at, not what I think is wise. Wise, in my opinion is 2.5-3X one's income, tops.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9adbfcff4d4780479c1deb5a8d63900e", "text": "\"The retailer can sell for whatever price they like, with the caveats that if they consistently sell at a loss they will go out of business and if they set the price too high they will not sell anything! As you mentioned, RRP is only a recommended price, the manufacturer cannot enfore it at all for legal reasons. Having said that I used to work in retail (not cars) and if we discounted a certain manufacturers products and they found out about it, we would find they had suddenly run out of stock when we tried to order more. So manufacturers do have some control over this type of thing depending on how \"\"underhand\"\" they want to be about it. My background is in retail management but not selling cars, but my understanding is the law regards RRP is the same.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "eacfee9951381bebcf1c60ba969680d7", "text": "\"I'll echo: many factors. Brand: There are generally two levels of pricing: \"\"major brand\"\" and \"\"discount brand\"\". You can generally expect the \"\"discount brand\"\" to cost about 5-10 cents less per gallon in the same neighborhood as \"\"major brand\"\" gas. This is for a number of sub-factors; chief among them is that not all gasolines are created equal. A lot of the major brands (Shell, Texaco, Chevron, BP, Exxon) have proprietary detergents and cleaning agents that the discount brands do not. They're also generally closer to the real octane rating of the gas, have less ethanol (you'll see the sign that says \"\"contains up to 10% ethanol\"\"; the bargain brands are right up at that limit while the top-tier brands keep it lower) and have stricter requirements about storage tank maintenance. Anyone who tells you that all gas is the same, send em my way; I tried to save a few bux buying the cheaper stuff and now my car needs an engine overhaul because of fouling causing premature wear. A couple of my co-workers got a fuel system overhaul free from the local supermarket because the storage tank wasn't properly purged, and they got water into their gas tanks. Market Price: Yes, this is of course a factor. Generally, gas prices at the pump rise very quickly when the market price of crude or gasoline goes up, then fall more slowly than the market price, because the margins on gas sales for a C-store are very slim. When prices change, the C-stores lose either way; when prices rise they have to pay more than they got from the last tankful to buy the next one, and when prices fall they don't recoup the cost of their current tank. By quickly increasing the price to match commodities market prices, then gradually lowering them over time even if the market collapses, they mitigate the losses both ways. Overhead: A gas station right next to a highway probably had to pay more for that land, both to buy/lease it and in property taxes. Nicer (newer, cleaner) stations generally have to pay more to stay that way. The higher your operating costs, the more you'll have to charge for your gas. You can usually do so because the nicer station will attract customers willing to pay a few cents more for the nicer facilities. Taxation: Most States charge a tax on gasoline, in addition to a Federal tax on gas. That revenue either goes into the State's general fund, or is earmarked for transportation costs like road maintenance. California's gas prices are sky-high across the state, because they have the highest gas tax. I'm not sure Colorado, Wyoming and Montana have gas taxes at all. Proximity to other stations: No matter what you have to pay for the land and facilities, if there's another station across the street, you have to be within a penny of their price or people will vote with their feet. While \"\"predatory pricing\"\" (taking a loss on sales in one area, buffered by profits elsewhere, in order to drive out competition) is technically illegal, you see it all the time in the C-store industry and it is very difficult to prove. This is a primary cause of neighborhood-to-neighborhood changes; a C-store will look around the other stations on their street corner, and the ones down the road a block or two each direction, when determining what they can sell gas for that day. The guy five blocks down has a completely different pool of competing stations. Population Distribution: With a lot of people in a particular area, there's a big \"\"pie\"\" of customer dollars for C-stores to compete for. This generally leads to increased prices because the stations don't have to be AS cutthroat; regardless of how good your price is, you have only so many pumps, and at some point people will pay more to use the open pump than wait for the cheaper one. The reverse is true in rural areas; with only two stations in an entire small town, those two stations will become extremely cutthroat. However, rural prices also vary more; with only one station in easy walking distance from where you ran out of gas, they can charge you $6 to fill that gallon gas can if they want, and you'll pay it because the next gas station's another 20 miles down the road and probably has even higher prices. This, along with overhead, is generally why the Rockies states have the lowest average prices; land's cheap and people are scarce in Wyoming. But, the \"\"price-gouging\"\" can be seen in the rural Southwest, where there's a LOT of ground to cover between gas stations, and so the \"\"last chance gas\"\" along major highways just outside of town, each a nickel to a dime more than the previous station, is a common stereotype. Transportation costs: Prices are higher on the East and West Coasts than in the Gulf States for a very simple reason; the bulk of the U.S. refinery capacity is along the Gulf Coast between Galveston and the Florida border. The further you are from there, the more it costs to get the fuel from the refinery to the gas station, and that cost is reflected at the pump. In fact, the East Coast imports gasoline by tanker even though the United States is now a net exporter of gasoline, because it's cheaper to buy it from foreign sources than it would be to watch it drip through the limited pipeline capacity that exists between the Gulf states and the Eastern Seaboard.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acb6347e5d3d910611bd8d83452fe9dc", "text": "\"He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for. For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told \"\"You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?\"\", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options. The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy. On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service. While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy. Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales. Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out. Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer. One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back. Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop. I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business. As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment. I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying. I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership. I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list. I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees. I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not. I told him, \"\"so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes\"\" but that logic did not register with him. Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me. I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e118f7b494caf6f02add38f418a4ed4", "text": "Question 1: Yes Question 2: There is no simple formula. Car insurance is mostly Statistics, because you have so many millions of cases that the variance is really low. This also means that, because the cost can be estimated so precisely, it is difficult to make an offer better than the competitors. For that reason every insurance company makes there own, arbitrary, segmentation of the data which leads them identify low risk groups they can offer a bonus to. Common ones are type of car or and driving experience, but it could be anything that is not forbidden by anti-discrimination-laws. Also additional perks like towing insurance etc. may give them an opportunity do differentiate themselves or to make easy profit. In fact it is a common tactic to offer prices that make close to no profit to fill up your book, then raise tariffs in then following years an make you profit with those who are to lazy to switch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79", "text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b4bd4cefd270190ccc26a077d32907a", "text": "I want to add that in my country, Israel, the tax on cars is extraordinarily high. Cars in Israel cost in average twice or more then in the US (for example, a new VW golf with the cheapest configuration costs around 25kUSD). Israel's average salary is lower then US's average salary and the fuel in Israel costs twice. Therefore, having a regular car in Israel costs the same as having a luxury car in the US. Most households have a car. It's all about priorities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1259d4d740cf27053cb763d58171860c", "text": "\"Suggested way to make the decision to repair or buy: Figure out what it will cost to repair your car. (If necessary, pay a garage to evaluate it \"\"as if your daughter was interested in buying it\"\".) Then think about whether you would pay that much to buy a car just like yours but without those problems. If the answer is yes, fixing it us probably your most cost-effective choice, even if it is a big bill. If the answer is no, consider a used car, and again have the mechanic check it for any lurking horrors before committing to buy it. That avoids the \"\"proprty-line tax\"\" where a new car loses a significant percentage of its value the moment it leaves the dealership. An almost-toy car us virtually indistinguishable from a new car, costs much less, and realistically has about the same expected life span. I bought a new car once -- at about $300 over the dealer's real (as opposed to sticker) cost, since I was willing to take the one he was stuck with from the previous model year. (Thank you, Consumer Reports, for providing the dealer's cost info and making this a five-minute transaction.) If it hadn't suffered flood damage I'd probably still be driving it, and even so I sorta regret not pricing what it would have cost go completely replace the engine. If you really plan to drive it until it is completely unrepairable, you may be able to justify a new car... But realistically buying a one- or two-year-old car would have been a better choice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e513a42cc62175045e50d61a634a5d83", "text": "If an offered price is below what people are willing to sell for, it is simply ignored. (What happens if I offer to buy lots of cars as long as I only have to pay $2 each? Same thing.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d233f6bf99fad1cc8751ba1049fd362", "text": "You could consider buying a fairly recent used car from CarMax. They have fixed pricing, and you'd save a good amount of money on the car (since cars lose tons of value in their first year or so).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b792851016cf8ff3dd6156ff029a2333", "text": "\"So this has been bugging me for a while, because I am facing a similar dilemma and I don't think anyone gave a clear answer. I bought a 2012 kia soul in 2012. 36 months financing at 300/mo. Will be done with my car loan in 2015. I plan on keeping it, while saving the same amount of money 300/mo until I buy my next car. But, I also have an option of trading it in for the the next car. Question: should I trade it in in 2015. should I keep it for 2 years more? 3 years more, before I buy the next car? What makes most financial sense and savings. I tried to dig up some data on edmunds - the trade-in value and \"\"true cost to own\"\" calculator. The make and model of my car started in 2010, so I do not have historical data, as well as \"\"cost to own\"\" calculator only spans 5 years. So - this is what I came up with: Where numbers in blue are totally made up/because I don't have the data for it. Granted, the trade-in values for the \"\"future\"\" years are guesstimated - based on Kia Soul's trade-in values from previous years (2010, 2011, 2012) But, this is handy, and as it gets closer to 2015 and beyond, I can re-plug in the data where it is available and have a better understanding of the trade-in vs keep it longer decision. Hope this helps. If the analysis is totally off the rocker, please let me know - i'll adjust it/delete it. Thank you\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59c2644669e158fcd62eead224b5bb6", "text": "\"Yeh sure! You will drive your car, hope the store will have what you look for, in the right size and color, and pay more. Rather than buy on-line. What's next? You will say \"\"it's the fault of the consumer\"\" that they chose to drive cars instead of horses with buggies? Brick and mortar retail can not be the same if you can shop and have huge selection on-line from anywhere were you live.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d656c57d1205ae4ee389bed0fd9b70d4", "text": "New tires will increase the resale value of the car; while not by the full cost of the tires, it will not be entirely a sunk cost. You'd need to factor that in and find out how much the new tires increase the resale value of the car to determine how much they would truly cost you. However, I suspect they would cost you less than a $25,000 car a year early would. That new car would cost some amount over time - it sounds like you buy a new car every 8 years or so? So it would cost you $25/8 = $3.3k/year. That would, then, be the overall cost of the new car a year early - $3.3k (as it would mean one less year out of your old car, so assuming it was also $25k/8 year or similar, that year becomes lost and thus a cost).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37049d5b4651ff2d2b07af518e8d9f81", "text": "You already got good answers on why you can't buy a Toyota from the factory, but my answer is regarding to the implied second part of your question: how to avoid haggling. I found a good way to avoid the haggling at a car dealership can be simply to not haggle. Go in with a different attitude. The main reason car dealers list inflated prices and then haggle is that they expect the customers to haggle. It is fundamentally based on distrust on both sides. Treat the sales person as your advisor, your business partner, as somebody you trust as an expert in his field, and you'll be surprised how the experience changes. Of course, make sure that the trust is justified. Sales reps have a fine line to walk. Of course they like to sell a car for more money, but they also do not want a reputation of overcharging customers. They'd rather you recommend them to your friends and post good reviews on Yelp. In the end, all reputable dealers effectively have a fixed-price policy, or close to it, even those who don't advertise it, and even for used cars. Haggling just prolongs the process to get there. And sales reps are people. Often people who hate the haggling part of their job as much as you do. I was in the market for a new (used) car a few months ago. In the end, it was between two cars (one of them a Toyota), both from the brand-name dealer's respective used car lots. In both cases, I went in knowing in advance what the car's fair market value was and what I was willing to pay (as well as details about the car, mileage, condition etc. - thanks to the Internet). Both cars were marked significantly higher. As soon as the sales rep realized that I wasn't even trying to haggle - the price dropped to the fair value. I didn't even have to ask for it. The rep even offered some extras thrown into the deal, things I hadn't even asked for (things like towing my old car to the junk yard).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "400acd072aaf20b5a499893d218bb5d5", "text": "The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62a47d5486de209fbe85d63ca4739c75", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "438bad75d87d85c9b5fcb2144e7da298", "text": "Ideally you would negotiate a car price without ever mentioning: And other factors that affect the price. You and the dealer would then negotiate a true price for the car, followed by the application of rebates, followed by negotiating for the loan if there is to be one. In practice this rarely happens. The sales rep asks point blank what rebates you qualify for (by asking get-to-know-you questions like where you work or if you served in the armed forces - you may not realize that these are do-you-qualify-for-a-rebate questions) before you've even chosen a model. They take that into account right from the beginning, along with whether they'll make a profit lending you money, or have to spend something to subsidize your zero percent loan. However unlike your veteran's status, your loan intentions are changeable. So when you get to the end you can ask if the price could be improved by paying cash. Or you could try putting the negotiated price on a credit card, and when they don't like that, ask for a further discount to stop you from using the credit card and paying cash.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e9bac1027ee2d9a25304a0689621aa4a", "text": "These kinds of credit card offers are incredibly common. More often you will get a certain reward if you spend $X within Y days of getting the card. In many cases you can take advantage of them with very little downside. However, are you responsible enough to have a credit card and be able to pay off the balance every month? If not the interest charges could quickly wipe out the $50 bonus you get. And hard inquiries and new accounts could potentially affect your credit score, particularly if you don't have a well-established credit history. There's also the chance you get denied in which case you add a hard inquiry to your credit report for no gain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b02f072b9ce5130ff5a25e31797035", "text": "\"What's going on here is that Amazon/visa thinks that the money they will earn on average from irresponsible credit card users is more value than 50$ each. This is the same logic that is behind the cash back or airplane point bonuses many credit cards offer, or the \"\"apply and get a free 2-liter of soda\"\" that some stores offer. I would need more information about the card to say whether or not you should apply (What are the fees, if any? What is the interest rate? etc).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16e30183af068872836fb8efc27c0db3", "text": "\"The most likely reason for this card is that Amazon has an arrangement with the issuer (I believe that that used to be Chase; may have changed since). Such an arrangement may allow Amazon to take the risk of chargebacks, etc. in return for the issuer handling the mechanics of billing. This is advantageous for Amazon, as otherwise they are subject to both their own procedures and those of the issuer. Amazon would rather take the entire risk than share it with someone else who charges for the privilege. Fees for processing credit cards can be as much as 5%, although 1-2% is more typical. Due to its size, Amazon may already have negotiated fees lower than 1%. But even so, any savings they make are to their benefit. Further, now they can get a share of the fees charged to other merchants. For example, if you buy a book from Barnes & Noble (an Amazon competitor) with the Amazon card, then Amazon gets some money in return, say 1% of the transaction. If the price is the same on Amazon and at Barnes & Noble, you can actually save money with the Amazon card. Amazon gives more \"\"cash back\"\" in the form of gift card balance for an Amazon purchase. So the card may mean that you buy from Amazon when you might otherwise have chosen someone else. If we again assume a 20% margin, they only need $200 of additional purchases to make $40 of profit. Someone who buys $1000 additional on the Amazon site makes them $200 of profit. They're over $160 ahead. Also note that Amazon is only giving you a gift card, which you have to use on Amazon. And it's difficult to spend exactly $50. As a practical matter, most people will buy, say, $60, with $10 of that money. So they sell you $48 of merchandise (their cost, assuming a 20% margin) for $10. They lost $38 on that transaction, but they've lured you into a long term relationship that may return more than that. And they didn't lose the $50 you gained. They only lost $38. Think about it as a marketing cost. Amazon is willing to pay $38 for a long term relationship with you. From their perspective, doing so in such a way that you come out $50 ahead (assuming you would have made the same purchases without this), is a win-win. Because once they have that relationship, they can leverage it to give them savings elsewhere. This is Amazon's approach in general. Originally all their products were drop shipped (from someone like Ingram Micro). They handled the web site and billing while the drop shipper handled inventory and shipping. Then Amazon added their own warehouses. Now they can do all that separately. This is just the same thing for buyers. Amazon manages all the risk of the transaction and thus gets all the profit. Because Amazon is managing the credit card risk, they have access to all the credit history. This helps them better determine if that sudden shipment of a $2000 camera to Thailand is a real transaction (you're a photographer who regularly vacations in Thailand) or a fake (you've never been to Thailand in your life and your phone is camera enough). That additional information may itself be worth enough to make the relationship profitable for Amazon. Amazon certainly gets something out of the relationship. You give them money. And you are likely to give them more money with the Amazon card than they would otherwise receive. But you get products in return. Is that a good deal? If you prefer having the products to the money, then yes. Others have suggested that it's the irresponsible credit card users that generate the real profit. I disagree. They generate more revenue in the short term, but then they overspend and declare bankruptcy. Then Amazon loses its money. Yes, they get more interest and fees in that case, but if they lose $1000, they needed to make $1000 in profit just to break even. It's safer to make the smaller short term profits with responsible customers who will continue to be customers for the long term. A steady profit of $100 or $200 a year is better than a one time profit of $500 followed by a loss of $1000 followed by nothing for ten years. Anyway, your question was if you should sign up for the card. If you are planning on doing a lot of shopping on Amazon, you might as well. It gives you cash back. If shopping on Amazon is inconvenient, then perhaps that outweighs the advantage of the card. The \"\"cash back\"\" is just Amazon money. You can't spend it anywhere but Amazon. If each transaction gives you a little bit of Amazon money, you have to keep going back to spend it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24c8948643497766dcc1a78c17bb2d63", "text": "\"Every financial services company (and cellphone provider, cable and broadband provider, private energy supplier, and so on and so forth - it's turtles all the way down in a market economy) spends \"\"something\"\" to acquire a new customer. Paying attractive college students minimum wage to hand out brochures and branded fidget toys costs money. A 1 million piece postal mailing for a 1% response rate costs money. A TV ad or billboard costs money. A signup enticement of cash or airplane miles costs money. The question is, what does an organization spend per new customer? The amount a company wants to spend has to do with their medium term outlook and overall margins, so it will vary with the business cycle, but a rule of thumb is $100-200 spent for each customer who signs up. The advantage to this particular offer is that it may involve some payments to Amazon, but it includes less labor or cost-per-wasted-contact than alternatives. So there's more in the budget to entice the prospect. Recall, it's a one-time cost, and you gain a relationship where you get 2% of credit processing turnover for the duration of the account; a chance at 19.99% APR financing or other fees; and an opportunity to upsell a mortgage or life insurance or IRA accounts, etc to a known customer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4c87e9c8d152315e652b51979588d3c", "text": "The 'store card' that Amazon offers gives 5% back on Amazon purchases. Some time ago, when I realized how much of my spending was going through Amazon, I chose that card over this one. If you want the card, that's fine, but if you are going to play the reward game, there are far higher bonuses available for card signups. No, it's not a scam. Many stores will offer a discount at the register the day you sign up for there card. In general, the store cards should also give a discount when used at that store, or airline for that matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4da7bb5d89dee83ddfbc814b49f50ae3", "text": "Amazon has 2 different cards you can apply for, a store card and a credit card. The credit card is through Chase. The deal is not a scam, I can confirm this because I applied for their credit card and got $70 in the form of a digital gift card. By giving customers free money for signing up for their cards they get more people who are willing to give it a try. Once you have a card, you get benefits like 3-5 percent back on Amazon purchases that will entice consumers to use the card. Amazon likely has an agreement with Chase and they are hoping to get you hooked with the free money and benefits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a90956cd43c5e156a765282c0e5085d", "text": "\"No. Amazon is a reputable company. Many stores have their own credit card. Additionally they have several cards available, through Visa and Discover. Neither would allow their name to be used knowing that a company was using it to scam people. And credit card companies are used to going after people with the full force of the law on their side. It's the only way they stay in business. I would read the terms and conditions, but as is, it is not a scam. But a free $50 seems to good to be true. Nothing is free. Having their credit card is significant. Look into the ownership of a credit card and how credit card companies make money. And \"\"gift cards for credit cards\"\" are common. In fact, some companies give away money just to fill out an application even if you turn down the card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "169ccc82e2d86fcbf8bb16740b5b248d", "text": "\"It's not a scam. They just want you to be an Amazon customer for many years and you'll be advertising Amazon to anyone who sees your credit card. $50 is known as the cost of \"\"customer acquisition\"\" and it is a very good deal for someone who may become a Prime member and spend $1000s a year on Amazon.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab13c8e94669d0061ba71990a2911d94", "text": "a free $50 looks too good to be true. As others already pointed out, these offers are common to many cards that want you to build loyalty towards a particular company (e.g. airlines cards give lots of mileage for a decent initial spend). Should I get this card for the $50? Why and/or why not? How much do you spend on Amazon, or are planning to do so in future? This offer has been around for ages (earlier they used to offer much smaller amounts of $20 for signing up) and you never saw it. So probably, you won't be really using the site frequently. In that case, its just a matter of whether $50 is worth the hassle for you to sign up and then later cancel (if you don't want to manage another new card). The hit to credit score is likely to be minimal unless you do such offers often. As such, for a person who rarely buys on Amazon I wouldn't advise you to sign up for this card, there are better rewards cards that are not as tied to a particular site (such as Chase Freedom, Discover etc.) If however, you are a regular shopper but just never noticed this prompt earlier; then it is worthwhile to get this - or even consider the Prime version, which you will get or be automatically upgraded to if the account has Prime membership. That gives 5% back instead of 3% on Amazon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56bc6d95b268336280b39839bab6321e", "text": "it's not a scam. it's not even too good to be true. frankly it's the lowest sign up bonus i've ever seen for a credit card. you would be better off signing up for a flagship card from one of the major banks (e.g. chase sapphire, citi double cash, discover it, amex blue). those cards regularly offer sign up bonuses worth between 400$ and 1000$. however, you can't get all the cards at once. noteably chase has a fairly firm limit of 5 new cards per 24 month. the other banks have similar, less publicized limits on who they will approve for a new card. so, by applying for this amazon card you are hurting your chances of getting far more lucrative sign up bonuses. it is however worth noting that those larger bonuses usually come with a minimum spending requirement (e.g. spend 1k$-3k$ in the first 3 months)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdd3dd91ff757451b0a2770a6cf70218", "text": "Based on my personal experience with that particular offer, I can say that it's not really a scam. I signed up for an Amazon Credit Card to get $70 off a purchase, but then never used the card. In fact, I never even called to activate it! After a few months, I then called to cancel it. I did not see a significant hit to my credit. However if you do shop frequently at Amazon it may be in your best interest to use their card, because it has other discounts associated with it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22a87943417c5c159583deeb06fc3e83", "text": "IANAL, but I'm pretty sure buying something at a store does not enter you in a contract with the store. Also, Target made up the rule about not allowing gift cards and then chose not to enforce it. According to the article, they chose not to enforce it over and over again. In fact, when the promotion ended, Target renewed it with the same terms! Calling these customers cheaters is baseless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60d5c6027151653ea2d0b3f83a24692e", "text": "No, that's not a fair argument. Obviously that is theft, and the sales associate isn't authorized to do that. She is allowed to act on Target's behalf to process transactions, however. Buying a gift card with a gift card is not theft. At the most it's a breach of a contract, but Target has little resource because it was a mutual breach of contract. A judge would laugh in Target's face if it tried to get its money back after its own employees and managers processed the transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a62da6e75096e48b6a8875bc3163ca43", "text": "\"There are only two things you can directly do with the money in an Amazon gift card: you can keep the gift card, or you can put the money into your Amazon account. There aren't any other options. You can't deposit the value into a bank account or anything like that. So, as far as safety, those are the only options you need to consider, because there's nothing else you can do. (Okay, there is one other thing you can do: you could sell the card to someone else, or barter it for something you want. But you can do that with anything.) The \"\"gift card\"\" is basicaly just a string of numbers and letters that you put into your Amazon account and it credits you with the appropriate amount of money. So yes, it can be stolen. If you haven't redeemed it yet, someone could find the code by hacking your email or looking over your shoulder or whatever. If they redeem it, you won't be able to do so. As for your edit: If I don't transfer the balance of the Amazon egift card to my Amazon account, can I transfer the balance to other accounts or use the card to buy other gift cards? If you don't transfer it to your account, you can transfer the balance to another account by giving the code to someone else and letting them deposit it in their account. You still won't be able to buy other gift cards with it, because you can't buy anything with it until it's deposited in an Amazon account, and once it's deposited in an Amazon account, you can't buy gift cards with it because of their policy. If you don't want the restrictions imposed by Amazon, don't buy Amazon gift cards; instead, just use your actual money to buy things. If you're worried about the cards being stolen, just deposit them into your account right away and you eliminate the risk of them being stolen. If, as you say, you bought the cards for yourself, there's no reason not to do this; presumably you bought them so you could buy things on Amazon, and you'll have to deposit them into your account eventually anyway to do that, so just put them in right away. I don't know specifically how Walmart cards work, but I assume they're the same. In general, anything called a \"\"gift card\"\" offered by a particular retailer works the same way: you can't do anything with it except buy products at that retailer. The only thing that really makes Amazon different is that the only way to use your card is to add the money to your Amazon account, because the only way to pay for things on Amazon is with an Amazon account. There's no way to spend just some of the value; you have to deposit it all into your account. With gift cards for retailers with physical locations, you can usually use the value up piecemeal, by actually going to a store and spending just enough to buy something. (I assume Walmart works this way, although I don't know if you can use an e-gift card this way there.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cee2f6ca79d788f239484db00eff466d", "text": "\"Did you even read the article? These were people who went into the store and did this in person. there are no \"\"orders\"\" to cancel. As for invalidating the cards, again, the article stated that many people took the Target gift cards and used them to buy Amex and Visa gift cards. tl;dr **RTFA**\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e117b07e0d45537f0e5663cba134ae15", "text": "Lmfao. You seriously believe one of the biggest companies in the world is making this deal in order to get into a niche area within the grocery store market... Amazon is competing with Walmart, not Trader Joe's. One of the biggest setbacks with online retail is the cost of heavy items. This will give them the brick and mortar front in order to cut costs and compete effectively across a plethora of items.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01f6ffb4c97ee5a677804038ba4b8f8f", "text": "Your first one is third party sellers not having their security up to date, and them losing money based on that. Not at all an Amazon issue. Third party sellers used bad security, got hit the same way anyone else would, news at 11. The second one, I assume, is the like 80,000 email addresses, not connected to anything. With, you'll notice, encrypted passwords. &gt;Oh look FUD. This is not an argument. Are you seriously unaware of license plate readers? I mean, I fucking already sent you a link to it. &gt;Quick someone tell Target their customer's credit card info isn't accessible. Someone tell the government leaking your SS#, date of birth, etc, is way worse than that! And it's for all of us! At least companies learn via stock price. It just keeps happening at the govt at a much worse scale. http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/the-7-most-significant-government-data-breaches/d/d-id/1327468", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e151c1cbf2497a78b250d5bf908a283", "text": "Stupid article. People on government assistance typically don't have a great deal of money to begin with, and there aren't exactly many items on Amazon that are at 'dollar store' level prices..and unless one is house-bound level of disabled, you really can't fill a whole grocery list by shopping at Amazon as you could running down to Walmart or Save a Lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04e09df8643a9e9bf56221aeef4741af", "text": "\"In general, if you think something even MIGHT be a scam, the answer is\"\"yes\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe2123e3797fe49da20d822d2df10329", "text": "In store pickup at Walmart is atrocious. I've tried it. And, you still have to go to Walmart. Amazon draws the yuppie types who not only like saving money, but also don't have the time to deal with going to stores and sure as hell don't want to go to Walmart of all places.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6f249e0ff2a1eba602fb9da7350447", "text": "Not so much a scam, if you fill the required paperwork and actually take time to mail it in assuming it's done correctly; you will get your money. That being said, having a mail-in rebate program is usually a win-win for the seller. While they may have to pay a small fee to a third party who handles the rebate almost always this influences a potential buyer to choose a specific product over the alternative. The seller knows very well that very few people will actually go through with it. And yes, they do often make the process needlessly complicated and long as a deterrent. Plus, let's be real, no one likes sending out physical letters anymore. From a marketing standpoint the mail-in rebate is a brilliant idea. However, it's usually more of an annoyance for the consumer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba9c7a098b91c3adfcde14646cd9d9e2", "text": "Is the VAT scam still on the go? I was under the impression that amazon have to pay vat according to the country the items are shipped to, not shipped from? It will be a complete fuck up on the part of our politicians if this loophole has not been closed yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa3ece4cecb006933c6acff5a5e9000b", "text": "or is this a form of money laundering? May not be, generally the amounts involved in money laundering are much higher. So if there are quite a few such transactions then yes it could be money laundering. It could also be for circumventing taxes, depending on country regulations one may try to do this to get around gift taxes etc. In this specific case it looks more of link harvesting / SEO optimization. Take a low cost item that is often searched and link to other product. if you see the company link on Amazon; Cougar takes you to shoes. So maybe on its own Cougar shoes does not rank high, so link it with similar name brand in different segment and try to boost the link.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb130f0db03f4c9abf14829270621a9c", "text": "The media is not reporting this story correctly. The way Amazon will likely monetize this patent is by *preventing* brick and mortar stores from limiting your ability to comparison shop. The reason? Amazon is the primary beneficiary when shoppers check for prices in real time. Sure, maybe Amazon will also use it to prevent comparison shopping in Whole Foods, but I really doubt that is the primary way Amazon intends to monetize the patent. If you're in Whole Foods, you probably aren't interested in going to Safeway, even though you already know it is cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41738846c29b227d7c9af116f730c97e", "text": "Ok so Arbitrage? I was looking specifically at the people who took this deal to the extreme taking the $5k and using the $10 giftcards to buy prepaid credit cards. Would the better term would be positive-feedback loop, since the only constraint would be time and energy to the people exploit this deal. Is there a financial term that fits this better?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f90bbdd90cafa17e1bed146d3546934", "text": "In addition to paypal, Amazon also offers a payment processing service that has micropayment pricing: For Transactions < $10:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f9703498d73a8ea7d140baacbd04fce4", "text": "If you know that your tax situation is not easily handled by the standard withholding table then you can use that line to ask for additional funds be withheld. You could also ask for less money to be withheld. Why would somebody do this? They had a small side business that made them extra income, and wanted to withhold extra money from their full time job to cover the extra income. They might have been awarded a big bonus and it caused too much in taxes to be withheld so they wanted to not have as much taxes from their regular pay check. Given the fact that you are young, in your first real job, and almost the entire tax year ahead of you, it is likely that the standard tax tables will be close enough. So leave the line blank or put zero.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "311f83af312064c4e084dd5e1a1ab6d7", "text": "\"You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K \"\"base rate\"\" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a268df25ca84a71891e1500c3c182a8", "text": "When you adjust your investments the following will happen: Initial condition: Modified condition: This means that after this change you will note that the amount of federal tax you pay each month via withholding will go up. You are now contributing less pre-tax, so your taxable income has increased. If you make no other changes, then in April you will either have increased your refund by 6 months x the additional $25 a month, or decreased the amount you owe by the same amount. There is no change in the total 401K balance at the end of the year, other than accounting for how much is held pre-tax vs. Roth post-tax. Keep in mind that employer contributions must be pre-tax. The company could never guess what your tax situation is. They withhold money for taxes based on the form you fill out, but they have no idea of your family's tax situation. If you fail to have enough withheld, you pay the penalty — not the company. *The tax savings are complex because it depends on marital status, your other pre-tax amounts for medical, and how much income your spouse makes, plus your other income and deductions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc203f282f5079672ba3daa2e0812b1", "text": "Biweekly pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 26. Twice a month pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 24. If you were getting paid twice a month and now are getting paid every other week, your paycheck will be roughly ( Twice-a-month-paycheck-amount * 24 / 26 ). If you were paid $1000 twice a month, you'll be paid $923 every other week. $1000 * 24 = $24K and $923 * 26 = $24K. You will get paid every other week regardless of month boundaries on a biweekly pay cycle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50fe9ddf775a60078442663c5e992797", "text": "Follow the instructions on the W-4. It says exactly how you are supposed to calculate the number of allowances. You shouldn't have to figure out how to get the right number. Just follow the instructions. The only part at all complex is if you have large deductions. In that case you're supposed to subtract a standard amount from your actual deductions -- for 2017, $12,700 if married filing jointly -- divide by $4,050, and then add the result to the number of allowances. In general, following the instructions on the W-4 should result in slightly more tax being withheld from your paycheck than you actually owe, so that you get a modest refund next April 15. In the long run it doesn't matter if you have too much withheld, as you'll get it all back eventually anyway. I suppose the withholding could be so high that it doesn't leave you enough to live on while waiting for your refund, but that shouldn't normally be the case. If you pay too little, you could be subject to penalties and interest, so you really want to avoid that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59b4addcfd69d3df4c5df1dfc823dba7", "text": "\"Two comments on your calculations: I worked for many years at a community college (Ontario, Canada) where I received an annual salary for the contract period Sept 1, Year N, to August 31, Year (N + 1). For most of that time, the system was 26 pay-cheques a year, one every 14 days. Payroll made most mandatory deductions (union dues, pension, etc.) on a monthly basis, assigning them to one or the other of the two cheques each month. So there was a fairly large variation in the net amount received in the two cheques. Plus there were those two \"\"extra\"\" cheques each year with very few deductions. (as in the answer of @Kate Gregory) Additionally, Payroll was smart enough to make the last cheque of the contract year for a slightly odd amount, just the correct amount to bring the total gross amount paid to the actual contractual salary, evening out any extra days or rounding error. They would restart the payment schedule anew on the second Thursday in September.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7156a9fde48c1a3aec096bab435c99e9", "text": "Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001a05c44348e7312abfded2fa384d00", "text": "First, I'd use an online tax calculator to figure out you total tax tab for the year. Then look through Circular E and figure out from there how much tax you should pay for the rest of the year and work backwards to calculate the number of allowances to get there. Two friendly warnings - Since you are doing this midyear, you'll need to repeat this exercise as we go into 2017. These next 6 months, you'll be withholding less than normal to make up for the high holdings so far. Second, a withholding is like saying tax/don't tax me on $4050. So in the 25% bracket, it's +/- $1000 in tax paid. You can adjust closer via the line 6 on W4 'additional withholding'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa2346b32ae0252269f355721595bec4", "text": "For federal taxes the rule is fairly straight forward, assuming that nothing else changes during the year. If you know your marginal tax rate (the rate that your last dollar of income is taxed at) last year then adding or subtracting an allowance on the w-4 form will move the amount withheld by rate x Personal exemption amount. The personal exemption for federal taxes in 2017 is $4,050. Lowering the number of allowances on the Federal W-4 increases the amount of money withheld during the year. So for your federal W-4 form lowering the number of allowances by one if you are in the 25% bracket will cause an additional 25%x4050 or ~$1012 a year to be withheld. Of course making the change 5/12ths of the way trough the year will mean that it will only increase the the amount withheld the rest of the year by (7/12) * $1012 or ~$590 for the rest of the year. State taxes can be more complex due to issues regarding tax brackets, and the differences in how they calculate their taxes. Most state websites have a worksheet for making an adjustment to their version of the W-4. Here is the form DE-4 form for California In your situation getting the numbers on the federal and state forms will be much more complex, because your combined income for 2017 will be significantly different than your combined income for 2016. In the case of multiple incomes getting the withholding correct is much harder even with stable income. The trick is that making the adjustment on the job with the highest income may not move the amount withheld as much as you expect. For example if the largest income is only withheld at the 15% rate but your combined income from all your combined jobs results in you being in the 25% bracket, then the above calculation would only move the amount withheld by $354 instead of $590. A couple of notes: the number of allowances on the federal and state W-4 forms don't have to match. Mine almost never do. The number of allowances on the W-4 forms doesn't have to match the number of exemptions on the 1040 form.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e823a2231fe80ac405b0c2fe35a9cf4", "text": "You can file a revised W-4 with your employer claiming more allowances than you do now. More allowances means less Federal tax and (if applicable and likely with a separate form) less state tax. This doesn't affect social security and Medicare with holding, though. That being said, US taxes are on a pay-as-you-go system. If the IRS determines that you're claiming more allowances than you're eligible for and not paying the proper taxes throughout the year, they will hit you with an underpayment penalty fee, which would likely negate the benefits of keeping that money in the first place. This is why independent contractors and self-employed people pay quarterly or estimated taxes. Depending on the employer, they may require proof of the allowances for adjustment before they accept the revised W-4.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef", "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!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e1bd20e6583336a2a461705b9cd9eba", "text": "\"The heart of the question is: why can't Bill just pay whatever he owes based on his income in that quarter? If Q2 is gang busters, he'll increase his tax payment. Then if Q3 is surprisingly slow, he'll pay less than he paid in Q2. I think what's most interesting about this question is that the other answers are geared towards how a taxpayer is supposed to estimate taxes. But that's not my objective -- nor is it Bill's objective. My [his] real objective is: In other words, the answer to this question either needs to deal with not overpaying, or it needs to deal with mitigating the underpayment penalty. AFAICT, there are 2 solutions: Solution 1 Figure your estimated taxes based on last year's tax. You won't owe a penalty if your withholding + estimated tax payments in each quarter are 25% or more of your previous year's tax liability. Here's the section that I am basing this on: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html Minimum required each period. You will owe a penalty for any 2011 payment period for which your estimated tax payment plus your withholding for the period and overpayments for previous periods was less than the smaller of: 22.5% of your 2011 tax, or 25% of your 2010 tax. (Your 2010 tax return must cover a 12-month period.) Solution 2 Use the \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\". This is not a method for calculating estimated taxes, per se. It's actually a method for reducing or eliminating your underpayment penalty. It's also intended to assist tax payers with unpredictable incomes. If you did not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a shop you operated at a marina was much larger in the summer than it was during the rest of the year), you may be able to lower or eliminate your penalty by figuring your underpayment using the annualized income installment method. Emphasis added. In order to take advantage of this, you'll need to send in a Schedule AI at the end of the year along with a Form 2210. The downside to this is that you're basically racking up underpayment penalties throughout the year, then at the end of the year you're asking the IRS to rescind your penalty. The other risk is that you still pay estimated taxes on your Q2 - Q4 earnings in Q1, you just pay much less than 25%. So if you have a windfall later in the year, I think you could get burned on your Q1 underpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b293a75aa6a5ccb721f4fe72a5f50768", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6857b11550d036c1d0e6f12b6bc092f4", "text": "\"The answer is simple -- your new job pays more than your old one. As such, you're in a higher tax withholding bracket, even with the same number of deductions as before. Your withholding is computed based on how much you make each pay period, and the number of pay periods in the year. So, if you were being paid weekly before then it was based on the assumption you made the same amount for every pay period in the calendar year. This is why tax varies from week to week for hourly employees and people being paid overtime. In your new job, you're being paid \"\"semi-monthly\"\", which makes for 24 pay periods rather than the 52 pay periods when you were paid weekly, so the amount of withholding (in dollar terms) is going to be much greater than when you were being paid weekly. Add in the fact you're making $2,000 more (a month, I presume?), so that's $24,000 a year more. It's definitely going to bump you into a different earning bracket for taxes, so even with the same number of deductions, you're going to pay more now. This isn't to say you won't be able to recoup some of that at the end of the year when you file your taxes, since your current withholding rate may have you over-paying. As such, you'll see a nice refund. One final note -- You always have the option of changing your withholding if you like. Many people will do that, claiming minimal deductions for the first few months of the year to let the maximum withholding take place, then they'll adjust their withholding deductions in the second half of the year to capture more in each paycheck. If done right, it makes no difference in the total amount withheld, but it does allow the checks at the latter part of the year to be bigger than if withholding deductions were kept the same throughout.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a30c7eb9e87bc88e5f6f9fef0e1ae22b", "text": "\"I would suggest you pay quarterly. Or, if you prefer, do the extra withholding. Don't wait until the end of the year. My experience is that of having a day job with freelance work on the side. I've spent a few years just freelancing, and I paid quarterly as requested to avoid the penalties. Now that I have a good day job again, my freelancing is just a small part of my income, and so I end up with a net return and no longer have to pay quarterly. You shouldn't wait until the end of the year to pay. This is assuming your wife is bringing in a decent income. The only scenario where you would want to wait is if her income is only a small amount (such as my wife's plans for an Etsy store). To the IRS, it doesn't really make a difference whether you withhold extra or pay quarterly. Of those two choices, my preference is to pay quarterly - it's easy to set up calendar reminders on the quarterly payment dates, which are always the same. I did the same as bstpierre when estimating my payments: just take last year's tax (for the business) and divide by 4 (adjusting for any obvious situational differences). That's usually close enough. Paying quarterly instead of via withholding means you get to hold on to your money (on average) for 6 weeks longer. Granted, that doesn't mean much with today's interest rates, but it's something. You may prefer the simpler accounting for withholding, though - you can \"\"set and forget\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "edeccec132105acaf4d53566108ccb90", "text": "There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing. From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you. Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality. Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17d0dd730c0065910517603869862e3b", "text": "\"Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for \"\"free\"\" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4baaa5568774bea88b5aba32f7b7d7", "text": "First, if you live in/around a reasonably populated urban area, and you're in the United States, I can't see why you would choose to bank with Chase, B of A, or another large commercial bank. I think you would be much better served by banking at a reasonably large credit union. There are many differences between banks and credit unions, but in a nutshell, credit unions are owned by the members, and operate primarily to provide benefits to their members, whereas a bank is owned by the shareholders, and operates primarily to make profits for the shareholders (not to benefit the customers). The banking industry absolutely hates the credit unions, so if you've ever been nickeled-and-dimed with this fee and that charge by your bank, I have to ask why you're still banking with a company that irritates you and/or actively tries to screw you out of your money? I live in California, and I've banked at credit unions almost exclusively since I started working nearly 30 years ago. Every time I've strayed and started banking at a for-profit bank, I've regretted it. For example, a few years ago I opened a checking account at a now-defunct bank (WaMu) just for online use: eBay and so forth. It was a free checking account. When Chase bought WaMu, the account became a Chase account, and it seemed that every other statement brought new fees, new restrictions, and so forth. I finally closed it when they imposed some stupid fee for not carrying enough of a balance. I found out by logging in to their Web site and seeing a balance of zero dollars; they had imposed the fee a few statements back, and I had missed it, so they kept debiting my account until it was empty. At this point, I do about 90% of my banking at a fairly large credit union. I have a mortgage with a big bank, but that was out of my hands, as the lender/originator sold the mortgage and I had no say in the matter. My credit union has a highly functional Web site, permits me to download my account activity to Quicken, and even has mobile apps which allow me to deposit a check by taking a picture of it, or check my account activity, etc. They (my credit union) are part of a network of other credit unions, so as long as I am using a network ATM, I never pay a fee. In sum, I can't see any reason to go with a bank. Regarding checks, I write a small number of checks per year, but I recently needed to reorder them. My credit union refers members directly to Harland-Clarke, a major-league player in the check printing business. Four boxes of security checks was around $130 plus shipping, which is not small money. However, I was able to order the very same checks via Costco for less than half that amount. Costco refers members to a check printing service, which is a front/subsidiary of Harland-Clarke, and using a promo code, plus the discount given for my Costco membership, I got four boxes of security checks shipped to me for less than $54. My advice would be to look around. If you're a Costco member, use their check printing service. Wal*mart offers a similar service to anyone, as does Sam's Club, and you can search around to find other similar services. Bottom line, if you order your checks via your bank or credit union, chances are you will pay full retail. Shop around, and save a bit. I've not opened a new account at a credit union in some time, but I would not be surprised if a credit union offered a free box of checks when you open a new account with them.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4e67a63703b2ce3423d76eebfd689f7b", "text": "The bottom line is something in your story is not adding up. You had two checks one that is voided, and one that is not. Lets say they are both written against your account for $100. Lets also assume that have exactly $100 in your account. You give the Liquor Store the voided one, they give you $100, but when they attempt to cash the check at their bank they are denied and assessed a $20 fee. You spend the $100 they gave you; however, you still should have $100 in your account as the check was not cashed. You want to make things right with the liquor store. You should be able to withdraw the $100 you still have in the bank and give them that much. While they will still be out the $20 fee, that should make them feel much better about you as a customer. Tell them when you will be paid and that you will give them the $20 on that date. Then do so. The only way this problem is not solvable is that you spent the $100 that was left in the bank. In that case, the Liquor store is correct you stole the money. More accurately you spent money that wasn't yours.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a96543e87a7d692090fe7441ce7b12c7", "text": "I was a victim of this. I'm not sure who got my routing and account number off my check, but someone subscribed to Playboy.com using my bank account information. Luckily it was only for about $30 and the bank refunded my money. However, it was a mess in that I had to open a new checking account and keep the other one open until all checks cleared. The bank was extremely helpful and monitored the account to make sure only the checks I told them about were processed. I then had to close the old account. This is why I believe checks are much less secure than credit cards or debit cards. A paper check can lay on someone's desk for anyone to pick up or write the information down off of it. I avoid checks if at all possible. For things like Craig's list, I would try to use PayPal or some other intermediate processing service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90f4a09fd47702b34fd698aa96b6fdb0", "text": "\"You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it. A simple scam is that people send you checks, \"\"by mistake\"\" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aa022f401826c82028f3335f5cd8c4d", "text": "I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90fea8919eaee4e7a4053d3661257cb", "text": "You should have a separate business account. Mixing business and personal funds is a bad practice. Shop around, you should be able to find a bank that will let you open a free checking account, especially if you are going to have minimal activity (e.g. less than 20 of checks per month) and perhaps maintain a small balance (e.g. $100 or $500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c2287b7bbb82a213d5afb5d8926b4fd", "text": "You could write a personal check after the final price has been set and you're ready to purchase. Another option would be to get the final price - then walk over to your bank and get a cashier's check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df4c9f2930e72408863d2d65f19c3d4", "text": "A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed19a528140148b687404d864b48cb36", "text": "\"I have checked with Bank of America, and they say the ONLY way to cash (or deposit, or otherwise get access to the funds represented by a check made out to my business) is to open a business account. They tell me this is a Federal regulation, and every bank will say the same thing. To do this, I need a state-issued \"\"dba\"\" certificate (from the county clerk's office) as well as an Employer ID Number (EIN) issued by the IRS. AND their CHEAPEST business banking account costs $15 / month. I think I can go to the bank that the check is drawn upon, and they will cash it, assuming I have documentation showing that I am the sole proprietor. But I'm not sure.... What a racket!!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3849e3003518435903391eaf972f235", "text": "The paper check method also allows the bank to use your money while the check is in the mail. My bank debits my account immediately, so while my $100 utility bill is traveling the U.S. Postal System for two days, they can make use of my $100 in whatever slush fund they like.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa1f2198f2b2841062db955e8b4bbd2", "text": "When I moved banks. I had my old bank cut a cashier's check. It isn't a check you write. They write it and give it to you. I then took the cashier's check to my new bank to deposit it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4be9577a4007b8e6fa6001cd6834502", "text": "This question was asked three years ago, but now that it's 2017 there is actually a relatively easy, cheap and fast solution to at least the first half of your question. To cash the check: I've done this a half dozen times while abroad (from the US) without any problems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d7742a2b993821a7cebeef9029d984", "text": "Additionally, it used to be the case that savings accounts would have a noticeably higher interest than checking accounts (if the checking account paid any at all). So you would attempt to maximize your cash working for you by putting as much as you could into the savings account and then only transferring out what you needed to cover bills, etc into the checking account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1144cfaa87b538d2965dbacc3eff749b", "text": "No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302019998d8505c3d4064045d88f4dcc", "text": "TD Bank (Northeast US) has free change counting machines at its branches. You don't have to have an account to use them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fb9aa8d4e4bb2f455a40c424889d31e", "text": "Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason. While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking. $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front. In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "00e5b6849aa3eb56d71d5a50da47a537", "text": "\"Well, I answered a very similar question \"\"Credit card payment date\"\" where I showed that for a normal cycle, the average charge isn't due for 40 days. The range is 35-55, so if you want to feel good about the float just charge everything the day after the cycle closes, and nothing else the rest of the month. Why is this so interesting? It's no trick, and no secret. By the way, this isn't likely to be of any use when you're buying gas, groceries, or normal purchases. But, I suppose if you have a large purchase, say a big TV, $3000, this will buy you extra time to pay. It would be remiss of me to not clearly state that anyone who needs to take advantage of this \"\"trick\"\" is the same person who probably shouldn't use credit cards at all. Those who use cards are best served by charging what they can afford to pay at that moment and not base today's charges on what paychecks will come in by the due date of the credit card bill.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2ec2555cc2ad70761dec8b1d77383c1", "text": "\"There are always little tricks you can play with your credit card. For example, the due date of your statement balance is not really set in stone as your bank would like you to believe. Banks have a TOS where they can make you liable to pay interest from the statement generation date (which is a good 25 days before your due date) on your balance, if you don't pay off your balance by your due date. However, you can choose to not pay your balance by your due date upto 30 days and they will not report your late payment to credit agencies. If they ask you to pay interest, you can negotiate yourself out of it as well (although not sure if it will work every-time if you make it a habit!) Be careful though: not all banks report your credit utilization based on your statement balance! DCU for example, reports your credit utilization based on your end-of-the-month balance. This can affect your short term credit score (history?) and mess around with your chances of pulling off these tricks with the bank CSRs. These \"\"little tricks\"\" can effectively net you more than 60 days of interest free loans, but I am not sure if anyone will condone this as a habit, especially on this website :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3676ef92f760af7d37a1107c411add97", "text": "\"I think this stuff was more valid when grace periods were longer. For example, back in the 90's, I had an MBNA card with a 35 day grace period. Many business travellers used Diner's Club charge cards because they featured a 60 day grace period. There are valid uses for this: As JoeTaxpayer stated, if you are benefiting from \"\"tricks\"\" like this, you probably have other problems that you probably ought to deal with.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ba5b7274a04a768d3faedd8fe82590a8", "text": "I've got a card that I've had for about 25 years now. The only time they charged me interest I showed it was their goof (the automatic payment failed because of their mistake) and they haven't cancelled it. No annual fee, a bit of cash back. The only cards I've ever had an issuer close are ones I didn't use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c94d24ea670df4c1baf45394ac352fa", "text": "some of that article is misleading, some of it is just plain wrong. Very wrong... like you end up drawing an incorrect conclusion type wrong. Corporate transaction accounts, whose balances are up recently due to TAG (expires 12/31), are subject to reserve requirements. When you purchase something with a credit card, the bank's asset of your credit increases and the bank's asset of cash decreases (it goes wherever you purchased). There is no change to your deposit account and no change to reserves. The incoming bank's cash account and liability account associated with that business transaction account increase, and it is trivial to transfer the % of cash necessary to reach minimum reserve requirements to the Fed. Secondly, anyone with a smidgen of accounting can tell that his balance sheet won't balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2485755553e2d7562b46a3cd00e78a", "text": "As Joe mentioned, you can carry a balance on your credit card for some grace period (typically 1 month). You will not be charged any interest if you pay your balance at the end of the grace period. I think of it as a way to get liquid immidieately for making purchases. For example, you want to make a large purchase but your funds are in some investment account which might take ~1 week to get to you. You can use the credit card to make the purchase and use that grace period to move your money from investments to checking account and pay for your purchase (without paying anything extra). This helps you keep your money invested and not having to keep large amounts in checking/savings account, which does not generate any returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "110ab6de93da2e5f4297f7a0b8d1501c", "text": "I have a CapitalOne credit card, and every two or three weeks, CapitalOne Bank sends me checks that can be used almost anywhere (including a deposit into my own checking account if I wish, or to pay taxes or utility bills etc)). The amount thus borrowed is counted as a balance transfer (as if I were paying off another credit-card balance) and it will be charged 0% interest for a year. The catch is that unless I pay off the next monthly statement in full by the due date, I will be charged interest on all new purchases from the day that they post to the account till the day they are paid off. No more grace period etc. All this will continue until that loan amount is paid off in full. So, I either would have to (i) pay off all the purchases made this month plus the minimum monthly payment shown on the next monthly statement and give up use of the card till that 0% balance is all repaid, or (ii) pay interest on new purchases. It might be worth checking on the CapitalOne Credit Card site if such an offer is available to you. If so, get a check from them, pay off the invoice using that check (actually, I would strongly recommend depositing the money in your local bank and writing them your personal check for the amount to be paid), and then pay off next month's bill in full, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc87b8f551e2bc7d73efaf789f7007ef", "text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0146622e30ee97ed4a6ebb72847e5f80", "text": "\"@Joe's original answer and the example with proportionate application of the payment to the two balances is not quite what will happen with US credit cards. By US law (CARD Act of 2009), if you make only the minimum required payment (or less), the credit-card company can choose which part of the balance that sum is applied to. I am not aware of any company that chooses to apply such payments to anything other than that part of the balance which carries the least interest rate (including the 0% rate that \"\"results\"\" from acceptance of balance transfer offers). If you make more than the minimum required payment, then the excess must, by law, be applied to paying off the highest rate balance. If the highest rate balance gets paid off completely, any remaining amount must be applied to second-highest rate balance, and so on. Thus, it is not the case that that $600 payment (in Joe's example) is applied proportionately to the $5000 and $1000 balances owed. It depends on what the required minimum payment is. So, what would be the minimum required payment? The minimum payment is the total of (i) all finance charges incurred during that month, (ii) all service fees and penalties (e.g. fee for exceeding credit limit, fee for taking a cash advance, late payment penalty) and other charges (e.g. annual card fee) and (iii) a fraction of the outstanding balance that (by law) must be large enough to allow the customer to pay off the entire balance in a reasonable length of time. The law is silent on what is reasonable, but most companies use 1% (which would pay off the balance over 8.33 years). Consider the numbers in Joe's example together with the following assumptions: $5000 and $1000 are the balances owed at the beginning of the month, no new charges or service fees during that month, and the previous month's minimum monthly payment was made on the day that the statement paid so that the finance charge for the current month is on the balances stated). The finance charge on the $5000 balance is $56.25, while the finance charge on the $1000 balance is $18.33, giving a minimum required payment of $56.25+18.33+60 = $134.58. Of the $600 payment, $134.58 would be applied to the lower-rate balance ($5000 + $56.25 = $5056.25) and reduce it to $4921.67. The excess $465.42 would be applied to the high-rate balance of $1000+18.33 = $1018.33 and reduce it to $552.91. In general, it is a bad idea to take a cash advance from a credit card. Don't do it unless you absolutely must have cash then and there to buy something from a merchant who does not accept credit cards, only cash, and don't be tempted to use the \"\"convenience checks\"\" that credit-card companies send you from time to time. All such cash advances not only carry larger rates of interest (there may also be upfront fees for taking an advance) but any purchases made during the rest of the month also become subject to finance charge. In other words, there is no \"\"grace period\"\" for new charges, and this state of affairs will last for one month beyond the first credit-card statement whose statement is paid off in full in timely fashion. Finally, turning to the question asked, viz. \"\" I am trying to determine how much I need to pay monthly to zero the balance, ....\"\", as per the above calculations, if the OP makes the minimum required payment of $134.58 plus $1018.33, that $134.58 will be applied to the low-rate balance and the rest $1018.33 will pay off the high-rate balance in full if the payment is made on the day the statement is issued. If payment is made later, but before the due date, that $1018.33 will be accruing finance charges until the date the payment is made, and these will appear as 22% rate balance on next month's statement. Similarly for the low-rate balance. What if several monthly payments will be required? The best calculator known to me is at https://powerpay.org (free but it is necessary to set up a username and password). Enter in all the credit card balances and the different interest rates, and the total amount of money that can be used to pay off the balances, and the site will lay out a payment plan. (Basically, pay off the highest-interest rate balance as much as possible while making minimum required payments on the rest). Most people are surprised at how much can be saved (and how much shorter the time to be debt-free is) if one is willing to pay just a little bit more each month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "957ee7a34155b897f559f6d7f2097af1", "text": "Credit cards come with an interest-free grace period of ~25 days as long as you pay your balance in full every month. In other words, charges made in January will appear on a bill cut on Jan 31, and due around the 25th of February. If paid in full by 2/25, there's no interest. It is a very good idea to get in the habit of paying off your entire balance every month for this very reason. Don't buy anything you can't afford to pay for at the end of the month when the credit card bill is due. You'll avoid interest charges, build good habits, and improve your credit score. By just paying the minimum amount due, you'll be charged interest from the moment of purchase, and the grace period on new purchases goes away. Credit card companies make the minimum amount due relatively low as a way to encourage you to pay more and more in interest every month. Don't fall for it! Look for a credit card with zero annual fee. Sure, rewards are nice, but it's more important to avoid fees, keep the interest rate low, and get in the habit of paying in full every month, in which case the interest rate won't matter. Your bank or credit union is a good place to start looking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "013e7bbdcf2f60f8c14ed6aeb7d90a95", "text": "\"This is most likely protecting Square's relationship with Visa/Mastercard/AMEX/etc. Credit card companies typically charge their customers a much higher interest rate with no grace period on cash advances (withdrawals made from an ATM using a credit card). If you use Square to generate something that looks like a \"\"merchandise transaction\"\" but instead just hand over a wad of banknotes, you're forcing the credit card company to apply their cheaper \"\"purchases\"\" interest rate on the transaction, plus award any applicable cashback offers†, etc. Square would absolutely profit off of this, but since it would result in less revenue for the partner credit card companies, that would quickly sour the relationship and could even result in them terminating their agreements with Square altogether. † This is the kind of activity they are trying to prevent: 1. Bill yourself $5,000 for \"\"merchandise\"\", but instead give yourself cash. 2. Earn 1.5% cashback ($75). 3. Use $4,925 of the cash and a $75 statement credit to pay your credit card statement. 4. Pocket the difference. 5. Repeat. Note, the fees involved probably negate any potential gain shown in this example, but I'm sure with enough creative thinking someone would figure out a way to game the system if it wasn't expressly forbidden in the terms of service\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e37fee42606d87823a1ba83b3875c0bc", "text": "\"These days, just about any bank has the ability to schedule payments for free. I usually use this. My wife has a Chase MasterCard, because they used to automatically credit the 1% cash back monthly. Now they \"\"improved\"\" the card, and you need to go online and redeem the rewards, either in $20 increments, or to pay off a previous purchase, which seems to be a real gimmick. They probably get back the 1% cash back for that purchase if you use this feature. Weird people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d05eb6c32d1e54ec6b7e038b6de18383", "text": "I actually just did that with my Chase Freedom card. They rotate categories every 3 months, and from April-June it was 5% back at grocery stores. So I bought a ton of gas cards and got my 5% back. Next I figured out I would be clever and buy a ton of store gift cards (grocery gift cards) right at the end of the quarter, then use those in the future to purchase gas cards. Well, I just tried that a couple days ago and discovered the store refuses to sell a gift card if you're paying with a gift card! So now I'm stuck with $1,000 in grocery cards until I use them in actual grocery purchases haha One of the things about this grocery store is they partner with a gas station on their rewards program. They offer 10 cents off a gallon with every $100 spent in store, and they double it to 20 cents off a gallon if you buy $100 in gift cards. Then on the back of the receipt is a coupon for 10 cents off per gallon -- which they double on Tuesdays. Unfortunately I think I'm one of the only people that takes this much advantage of the program :-/ Side note: I actually just changed the billing cycle of my Chase Freedom card to end on the 24th of the month. That way I can charge a bunch of rewards in the final 6-7 days of the quarter. And if I have a $0 balance on the 24th, my bill isn't due for 7 weeks -- interest free! And Chase Freedom has never cared if you purchase gift cards with their quarterly rewards program. I also gave them a courtesy email giving the specific store and $$$ amount that was going to be charged, and of course they still called me with a 'fraud alert'...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bca6efbe832423d0184f47a61d09dc1", "text": "I don't know about India, but here in the US banks, and more friendly institutions such as credit unions, use to offer the option of a 'secured' credit card where the card was secured by placing a lock on money in a savings account equal to the credit limit on the card. So for example, if you had $1500 in savings, you could have them lock say $1000, which you would not be able to withdraw from savings, in return for a credit card account with a credit limit of $1000. Typically you still earned interest on the full amount of the savings, you were just limited to having to maintain a minimum balance in that account of $1000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27715be676e47c2c991c5717c23bdfa", "text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf47890f17a70e7c12db0bdeeb0ffff5", "text": "\"In addition to all the points made in other answers, in some jurisdictions (including the UK where I live) the consumer credit laws require the lender to allow the borrower to pay off the loan at any time. If the lender charges interest and the borrower pays off the loan early then the lender loses the interest that would have been paid during the rest of the loan period. However if the actual interest is baked into the sale price of an item and the loan to pay for it is nominally \"\"0%\"\" then the borrower still pays all the interest even if they pay off the loan immediately. If you think this game is being played then you can ask for a \"\"cash discount\"\" (or similar wording: I once had problems with a car salesman who thought I meant a suitcase full of used £20s), meaning you want to avoid paying the interest as you are not taking a loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d496f9c067c99654f535358fd6df3ad", "text": "\"I too am a full-monthly-statement-balance payer and I received a balance transfer offer from my credit-card company. This one was quite different from many others that I have read about on this forum. I could do a balance transfer for any amount up to $X from another credit card, or use the enclosed \"\"checks\"\" to pay some other (non-credit-card) bills, and I would not have to pay any interest for 12 months on the amount thus borrowed. But, There would be a 2% service charge on the amount I was borrowing. This amount would be billed on the next monthly statement, and it would have to be paid in full by the due date of that month's payment, that is, within the 25-day grace period allowed for payment of monthly statements. Else, interest would start being charged on the unpaid part of the service charge at the usual humongous rate of H% per month. If I had not paid the previous month's balance in full, I would be charged interest at H% per month on the service charge starting from Day One; no free ride till the due date of the next month's statement. Of course, the balance carried over from last month would also be charged interest at H%. If I had paid last month's bill in full, but there were any other charges (purchases) during the current month, then unless the entire amount due, this month's purchases plus service charge and that \"\"interest-free-for-twelve-months loan\"\" balance was paid off within the 25-day grace period, my purchases would be deemed unpaid and would start being charged interest. In short, the only way to avoid paying interest on the amount borrowed was to start with a card showing a $0 balance due on the previous month's statement, not make any charges on that card for a whole year, and pay off that 2% service charge within the grace period. It might also have required that one-twelfth of that interest-free loan be repaid each month, but I had stopped reading the offer at this point and filed it in the round circular file. In short, while @JoeTaxpayer's tale of how \"\"As a pay-in-full user, I've used the zero rate to throw $20K at the 5.25% mortgage\"\" is undoubtedly how things worked once, it is not at all clear that they still work that way. At least, they don't work that way for me. Heck, once upon a time, for a period of about 3 months, you could earn 1.5% interest per month from the credit card company by overpaying your credit card bill considerably. Their computers then just \"\"added on\"\" 1.5% interest by multiplying your credit balance -$X by 1.015 and so you got 1.5% per month interest from the credit card company. The credit card agreements (and the software!) got changed in a hurry, and nowdays all credit-card agreements state in the fine print that if you overpay your bill, you don't earn any interest on the overpayment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8402cd85b94b8bfaaa6a10c0042a438d", "text": "No. There is no incentive for the card issuer to permanently loan you money for free (Even though they make a small amount of money with every transaction). Yes, there are many credit cards that offer introductory 0% APR, often lasting for a year, some even two years. In theory, you could keep applying for new cards with these terms, and continually transfer the balance to the new card (Though you would probably incur a fee for doing so).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1466443fbfb06e3d1f6080caa767b77e", "text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fb4ed771f66e236487e2f709666e10e", "text": "Just call your credit union and ask if they will let you refinance at the lower rate. If they won't, then just increase your payment every month so that your car is paid off early (in 36 months instead of 60). You won't get the lower rate, but since your loan will be paid early, you'll be saving interest anyway.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "31a736945a0b3e1cda4dc598cdab518e", "text": "if the rate of interest on both loans is 6.5%, it does not make any difference against which loan you offset. if you offset it with 50K loan, you will close it sooner [I am assuming your 50K loan is of shorter tenure compared to the 300K without considering offset]. The overall interest outgo looks larger if you close the shorter loan vs closing the larger loan, however the net effect is the same if you start putting out the balance $400 to the 300K loan after you have closed it out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dafb4ba99dcc4c83773eedfb143ebb1", "text": "Last question first: The amount borrowed will not transfer to your loved ones upon death. Even if you were age 50, it is somewhat unlikely you will die in 30 years. First question: Are you okay with having a student loan that long? Keep in mind that making payments for that long will hinder your ability to build wealth, buy a home, and have disposable income. Presumably you are used to living like a college student. If you continue to do so, and maybe take on another job (for the time you used to spend in school), you could be done with this much sooner. 2k/month is doable and retires this in 5 years, but I would shoot for a shorter time frame than that. Hopefully by purposely incurring that much debt you bought yourself a high paying career.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9812d64c3ece8001274f40ca58b458fb", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcd3f1bfd91b3e4ba23288497bd15f5b", "text": "\"Your mortgage terms are locked in; the servicer/new owner cannot change the terms without your consent, but the servicer can be more aggressive in taking action (as specified in your mortgage contract) against you. For example, if the mortgage agreement calls for penalties for missing a payment or making it late, your friendly neighborhood banker might waive the penalty if the payment is received a day late once (but perhaps not the second or the third time), but the servicer doesn't know you personally and does not care; you are hit with the penalty right away. If the payment was received a day late because of delays in the post office, too bad. If you used a bank bill payment service that \"\"guarantees\"\" on-time arrival, talk to the bank. All perfectly legal, and what you agreed to when you signed the contract. If you can set up electronic payments of your mortgage payments, you can avoid many of these hassles. If you are sending in more money than what is due each month, you should make sure that the extra money reduces the principal amount owed; easy enough if you are sending a physical check with a coupon that has an entry line for \"\"Extra payment applied to principal\"\" on it. But, the best mortgage contracts (from the bank's point of view) are those that say that extra money sent in applies to future monthly installments. That is, if you send in more than the monthly payment one month, you can send in a reduced payment next month; the bank will gladly hold the extra amount sent in this month and apply it towards next month's payment. So, read your mortgage document (I know, I know, the fine print is incomprehensible) to see how extra money is applied. Finally, re-financing your mortgage because you don't like the servicer is a losing proposition unless you can, somehow, ensure that your new bank will not sell your new mortgage to the same servicer or someone even worse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e136cafcae837d65d87c1e9fd27b5988", "text": "You can negotiate a no penalty for early payment loan with dealerships sometimes. Dealerships will often give you a better price on the car when you finance through them vs paying cash, so you negotiate in a 48 month finance, after you've settled on the price THEN you negotiate the no penalty for early payment point. They'll be less likely to try to raise the price after you've already come to an agreement. My dad has SAID he does this when buying cars, but that could just be hearsay and bravado. Has said he will negotiate on the basis of a long term lease, nail down a price then throw that clause in, then pay the car off in the first payment. Disclaimer: it's...um not a great way to do business though if you plan to purchase a new car every 2-3 years from the same dealer. Do it once and you'll have a note in their CRM not to either a) offer price reductions for financing or b) offer no penalty early payment financing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d20e19f97cb64de8d152d040b7ead706", "text": "The way I read this, you've been effectively paying $100 per month toward a $5,000 loan at $10% per year. Excluding the fact that there is another balance attached to the loan. After 36 months there's roughly $2,718 remaining on the $5,000, assuming there have been no late fees etc and your $100 is all that's being applied to your balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e905a52faf79b0f5c72e8e48ceeefe1", "text": "As you say, if you delay paying your bills, your liabilities will increase. Like say your bills total $10,000 per month. If you normally pay after 30 days, then your short-term liabilities will be $10,000. If you stretch that out to pay after 60 days, then you will be carrying two months worth of bills as a short-term liability, or $20,000. Your liabilities go up. Assume you keep the same amount of cash on hand after you stretch out your payments like this as you did before. Now your liabilities are higher but your assets are the same, so your working capital goes down. For example, suppose you kept $25,000 in the bank before this change and you still keep $30,000 after. Then before your working capital was $25,000 minus $10,000, or $15,000. After it is $25,000 minus $20,000, or only $5,000. So how does this relate to cash flow? While presumably if the company has $10,000 per month in bills, and their bank balance remains at $25,000 month after month, then they must have $10,000 per month in income that's going to pay those bills, or the bank balance would be going down. So now if they DON'T pay that $10,000 in bills this month, but the bank account doesn't go up by $10,000, then they must have spent the $10,000 on something else. That is, they have converted that money from an on-going balance into cash flow. Note that this is a one-time trick. If you stretch out your payment time from 30 days to 60 days, then you are now carrying 2 months worth of bills on your books instead of 1. So the first month that you do this -- if you did it all at once for all your bills -- you would just not pay any bills that month. But then you would have to resume paying the bills the next month. It's not like you're adding $10,000 to your cash flow every month. You're adding $10,000 to your cash flow the month that you make the change. Then you return to equilibrium. To increase your cash flow every month this way, you would have to continually increase the time it takes you to pay your bills: 30 days this month, 45 days the next, 60 the next, then 75, 90, etc. Pretty soon your bills are 20 years past due and no one wants to do business with you any more. Normally people see an action like this as an emergency measure to get over a short-term cash crunch. Adopting it as a long-term policy seems very short-sighted to me, creating a long-term relationship problem with your suppliers in exchange for a one-shot gain. But then, I'm not a big corporate finance officer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2915cb9b142bf04bbcd136953fe594a", "text": "Sounds like you are stuck. These are your options: increase limit Not going to happen. You said you don't qualify. You also won't convince them to let you access more borrowing power by arguing that you can't pay now. No responsible lender would take that bet. negotiate balance Unlikely. This sounds like mostly real debt, not fees. They generally won't write off real debt except if you are in default. They will only negotiate if they think you can't pay. Note that this will probably hurt your credit, as they will report that you didn't pay your debt. pay down balance This is your best and only real option. If you can't afford to pay down the balance you can't afford to borrow more. I am sorry for your situation; it is frustrating. I know how that feels. It is a textbook example of the risk associated with debt. Even if you plan to pay the balance every month, when the unexpected happens, you pay the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ca1a96723557f66a88d1d0e6fb6b2c9", "text": "\"My husband made a similar car loan decision when he was younger and didn't have an established credit history / favourable credit rating. As a result, he ended up paying triple what the car was worth, because of the interest. When we consolidated our finances, this ugly loan was first on our list of priorities to change, convert, eliminate, but unfortunately, in our case, the terms of the loan were such that only the lender benefited. There was no incentive to pay off the loan early, in fact, we would have to have paid all the future interest at once, without saving a penny. So check the terms of your loan - hopefully you're better off than we were. In our case, the only upside we could figure was the lesson of \"\"live and learn\"\"!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baa03a0acecbb06148485f6ff194f9ca", "text": "If the best they can do is 1/8th of a percent for a 15 year term, you are best served by taking the 30 year term. Pay it down sooner if you can, but it's nice to have the flexibility if you have a month where things are tight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89f1ade5a5d1facb184bb496ca30acfd", "text": "I would not take this personal loan. Let's look closer at your options. Currently, you are paying $1100 a month in rent, and you have all the money saved up that you need to be able to pay cash for school. That's a good position to be in. You are proposing to take out a loan and buy an apartment. Between your new mortgage and your new personal loan payment, you'll be paying $1500 a month, and that is before you pay for the extra expenses involved in owning, such as property taxes, insurance, etc. Yes, you'll be gaining some equity in an apartment, but in the short term over the next two years, you'll be spending more money, and in the first two years of a 30 year mortgage, almost all of your payment is interest anyway. In two years from now, you'll have a master's degree and hopefully be able to make more income. Will you want to get a new job? Will you be moving to a new city? Maybe, maybe not. By refraining from purchasing the apartment now, you are able to save up more cash over the next two years and you won't have an apartment tying you down. With the money you save by not taking the personal loan, you'll have enough cash for a down payment for an apartment wherever your new master's degree takes you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eedf6da91e9b2f131f37f1f643d7a0e7", "text": "Fixed You are confirming the amount you are going t pay over the term of the loan. Variable: 3.79% over 82mo. The total difference over the life of the loan comes to around $1200 That is the wrong way to calculate the variable portion. The variable is primarily set with a margin over a certain benchmark i.e. Fed rate. Assuming the Fed rate doesn't change over or only goes lower the variable rate is the one to go. If it rises then your payment will increase. And the margin they take over the benchmark rate may increase, so the total amount you pay might increase too. I would assume a read through the T&Cs should clarify that for you. Is it ever a good idea to choose a variable rate loan? Only if you think we are in a low interest rate environment i.e. the economy is in doldrums and the Feds are trying to simulate the economy by decreasing the benchmark rates. And you are sure that the lender isn't going to increase his margins if the rate remains low for quite a substantial amount of time. And I might assume there will be penalties for paying off a loan quicker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ac7145096a771bd1f899b08bb62fa5", "text": "\"You also want to make sure that the loan is being re-amortized (sometimes called \"\"recasting\"\"). Without this, you are still responsible for the interest payments according to the original amortization table. If you re-amortize the loan with a principal that is lower than on the table, you will reduce the amount of interest you owe each period, which means that if you maintain the same payment you will pay less in total interest. It's important to realize that most people re-amortize to reduce the payment amount but not the term. Also, not all loans can be re-amortized, and some banks limit how often it can be done.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e0f11eee26c79cceb8d21f1db5f85e", "text": "\"There's a loophole that could enable you to have it both ways. Start taking it out as soon as you are eligible. e.g. at age 62. If you decide you want more, starting at age 65, you can \"\"start fresh\"\" (at a higher level) by repaying what you took out between ages 62-64 at face value. Essentially, you can take out an interest-free loan for those years. Or so the experts at Agora Financial have told me.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a075cc97288fb8b4f330df6bcdb88aac", "text": "We all buy stuff from time to time that only satisfies us for a short time. I was able to locate a few expenses that fall under that category. I see a lot answers that focus on not getting these things. I'm going to tell you how to at least attempt to have your cake and eat it too. If you can get these things without paying for them, or by paying pennies on the dollar for them, you'll no longer want to buy them at full price. Begin by making a list of the items you can't stop thinking about. Go to your local library and look for relevant items that are on your list. If they are not yet available, request that the library purchase them, and reserve them for when the items come in. Yes, libraries are usually tax-supported, but to give back, if you can't afford to contribute to the Library immediately, you can still promote their fund-raising or book/media-drive efforts. If you don't mind buying things that may be second hand, thrift stores and garage or yard sales can have anything. The ones near you may have one or two items on your list of things you were looking for - for pennies on the dollar. Other items might be things you can share with friends. Borrow or swap things until you get bored of them. If you don't have a network of friends with shared interests, there may be a local freecycle or relevant meetup group you can join. The key here is to try to contribute more than you take (and you probably have things you don't need that you can start with trading), and don't keep careful score. The upshot is you'll not only save money but make friends while doing it. You can sometimes have your cake and eat it too. These recommendations can get you the short-term happiness you were looking for, without spending the money. And when the happiness is gone, you won't feel like you need to hang on to the item indefinitely - you can pass it on for others to enjoy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e90889eb5f2065484f68f1a81ab324e9", "text": "I found the best way to do this was to make a spending plan at the beginning of the month with someone else. If you're married or in a relationship where you pool resources, then this is a natural way to sync up on your expectations. If you don't have a relationship of that nature, it's still good to have a friend that you talk to about things you are planning on buying. If I don't allow myself to buy things on a whim, if I have to take the time to justify my purchases to someone else, then I have to first think about the purchase and justify it to myself. Often the actual process of thinking it through is enough for me to talk myself out of it. Consider the tactics of car salesmen. Each time you attempt to leave the lot, to think about it overnight, they sweeten the offer to try to get you to buy before leaving. They know that if you leave the lot, you are much less likely to decide that you must have that car. You should have a policy of sleeping for one night before making any purchase over an arbitrary dollar amount say $250, or $500, or $1,000. Having that rule, and following it will save you a lot of buyers remorse. As an aside, I've had my eye on a 35mm prime lens for my camera for over a year now. I was ready to pay ~$500 for a nice lens that was discounted by $100, and I was a little sad that I missed the discount. However, I am very deliberate in my shopping, and I didn't want to buy until I read enough of the reviews to be certain about it. It turns out that the lens has a fatal flaw for landscape photography that most reviewers didn't notice because they were using it for portrait photography. I finally concluded that the lens I really wanted was an $800 lens. I looked at resale prices on my $600 lens and they are in the $350 range. So instead of missing out on a $100 discount, I missed out on a $150 loss trading up to the lens that I really want for the long term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51f990657b459bb34ba495a7383ccfe3", "text": "To me the key is a budget. Each month, before it begins, decide on what to spend on each dollar that you earn. Money should be allotted for normal expenses such as housing, food, transportation, and utilities. If you have any consumer debt that should be a priority. Extra money should go to eliminate that debt. There should be money allotted to savings goals (such as retirement, home down payment, or vacation home). Also there should be money set aside for clothing and giving. Giving is an important part and often overlooked part of wealth creation. Somewhere in there you should also give yourself a bit of free money. For example one of the things I spend my free money on is coffee. I buy freshly ground coffee from a really good supplier. It is a bit expensive, but that is okay as it does not preclude me from meeting other goals. If you still have money left after all of that increase your giving some, your savings some, and your free money some. You can then spend that money without guilt. If your budget includes $100 of free money per month, and you want something that costs $1000, save up the $1,000 and then buy it. Do not borrow to buy free money stuff! Doing those sorts of things will make you weigh purchasing decisions very carefully. If you find that you cannot stick to a budget, you should enlist a friend to be your accountability partner. They have to be very good with money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7def91c35c896505b404f8a6b1aa01ac", "text": "\"One of the most effective tools we have to keep ourselves from doing things is procrastination. Most of the time procrastination is a bad thing because we use it to avoid doing things we should be doing. But it's equally effective at keeping us from doing things that are not good for us, like overspending or overeating. How do we procrastinate things like this? Put it on a big, fat, TODO list somewhere that you seldom look at. That will get it out of your head...your subconscious will not keep bugging you about it because it's not worried about forgetting it. Save the discount code in the list so you know you will have it if you ever want it. Put other things that you are unlikely to do any time soon on that same list. Then move on with your life and enjoy your freedom from useless and expensive clutter. I use online TODO lists (also google docs) for keeping track of things I'm supposed to be doing. One of my lists, \"\"long term purchases,\"\" contains a bunch of expensive stuff that I have wanted at some point but not gotten around to purchasing. I think the list has saved me a lot of money. Stuff stays on that list a long time. Ultimately most of the items on the list either become cheap or I lose interest in them. There's a reason salesmen push you to buy NOW NOW NOW. They know if you procrastinate the decision, you are much less likely to buy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2f7d4e2a96e3cde245fdd90da2faa6f", "text": "Nathan's answer was a +1 from me. The answer is not always simple. Having the money available is surely the first step. Using Pete's process aligns with this. Another thought is depending where you are in your finances, delay by a day for every $100 in cost. e.g. For a $1000 purchase, sleep on it for 10 days. Adjust the number for your circumstance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "264db385dc4d772151dcee5feed3eb34", "text": "\"Since these are specific items that you don't really want to buy, it might help to figure out what you could spend that money on that you DO really want. It sounds like right now you are thinking \"\"Wow, I can get this widget (that I don't really want) for so cheap with this discount code!\"\" Try changing your thinking to something along the lines of \"\"This widget is pretty cool, but I could buy this doodad that I really want instead\"\" or \"\"This widget is nice, but if I don't buy it, I could have a latte every other day this month.\"\" I've found this to be a very effective technique-- and I often don't end up buying the doodads or lattes either. It's just a good way to put the cost of your purchase in perspective. The other thing I do when I want something is to write it down and revisit it a week or so later. If I still want it and I still have the budget for it (and especially if I've skipped other purchases to save up for it), then I buy it. That advice doesn't sound like it will work for you though, since it sounds like you've wanted to buy these things for a long time. So... are you REALLY sure you don't want them, or do you just not want to want them?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11f790046399809b908728f0d9f14a7c", "text": "I use cash exclusively. I go to the cash machine once a week and withdraw the money I want to spend in one week (so I have to plan if I want to buy something expensive). Otherwise I leave the card at home. As bonus you get anonymity, i.e. big brother cannot track you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75e101bd1c0b946683ec4593854b1eca", "text": "Make a deal with yourself. You can buy the things that you want, but only after you've read three books on behavioral economics. You should probably start first with Dan Ariely's Predictably Irrational, which will help you understand why the discount makes you covet the products even more than you would without it. Then find and read two more high-quality books from the same genre. If you gain self-awareness from this, you will begin to understand why you are conflicted (hint: you really don't want the things you think you do). And you probably won't purchase anything in spite of the fact that you kept the first part of the bargain.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84fc57412f24d3e53079925b3255f9d", "text": "There are a lot of good answers above, all of them will probably work for you in some way or another. One point to note (from the procrastination theme) is that you could invest your free money that you have currently in some investment instrument which would require you to do some paperwork etc. to get out, this way the immediate cash flow is decreased and also invested. Now from each montly budget save a small amount for the things that you would like to buy. Give this small savings some months to accumulate so that you can afford only one of the items that you want to buy or target an item that you want to buy. After the money is accumulated, if you still want to buy the item, then you probably should. One point of note is that budgeting is also important on a monthly basis, Pete has provided excellent suggestion in this regard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "045b03d3530b3e3f6265ebefedc303b3", "text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2bf07e63994720b13da84861816442", "text": "\"To me, your question emphasizes something I've heard many times before: personal finance is as much or more about behavior than it is about mathematics or \"\"head knowledge\"\". Sure, you know you shouldn't be wasting a lot of money on something you will use very infrequently, but how do you make this behavior stick? Here are a few tricks that might help: The other aspects of your question really touch more on psychology than finance. But getting yourself into a discipline habit with money will help. And realizing the full cash price of items in relation to how much your disposable income is will help you get control of your impulses, as you review your budget monthly, and keep limit yourself using the envelope system. But honestly, everybody wants stuff they don't have, it's human nature. The key is finding ways to put physical limits and guards on yourself to keep you from obeying the self-destructive impulses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c87643e5a6f184c6002adef2393a7600", "text": "\"I believe that your dilemma comes from not having clearly defined consequences of buying it. On one side you want it and you can afford it, but on the other side there is nothing solid. Just some vague dislike of spending money and guilt of buying something \"\"useless\"\". You're basically guilt tripping yourself into not buying it, and guilt tripping is always bad. What you need is clear-cut consequence. Something like \"\"I can buy X but then I won't get Y and Z\"\". And for that you need a clearly laid out budget, just to know how much you can spend. Money that go into things that are absolutely required, money that go into various saving plans, etc - and after that you're left with some clear amount that should be spent on making yourself happier. Making yourself happier is not something you should feel guilty about, it's actually one of purposes of life. Making yourself happy is only bad if it's hurting other areas of your life (and even that is relative, because there is always some extent of degradation you're willing to accept or you have already accepted). There is absolutely no point in saving every single penny you can, because that will make you live long and unhappy life and die without enjoying your riches.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c372ebe4d33144e8b380f5ce9052c02", "text": "My approach won't work for everyone, but I keep a longer list of things I want in my head, preferably including higher value items. I then look at the cost of an item vs the amount of benefit it gets me (either enjoyment or ability to make more money or both). If I only had a few things I wanted, it would be easy to buy them even if the payback wasn't that great, but because I have a large list of things I'd like to be able to do, it's easier to play the comparison game in my head. Do I want this $50 thing now that will only give me a little bit of enjoyment and no income, or would I rather be able to get that $3000 digital cinema camera that I would enjoy having and could work on projects with and actually make money off of? (This is a RL example that I actually just bought last week after making sure I had solid leads on enough projects to pay myself back over time.) For me, it is much easier to compare with an alternative thing I'd enjoy, particularly since I enjoy hobbies that can pay for themselves, which is really the situation this strategy works best in. It might not work for everyone, but hobbies that pay for themselves can take many different forms. Mine tends to be very direct (get A/V tool, do projects that pay money), but it can also be indirect (get sports stuff, save on gym membership over time). If you can get things onto your list that can save you money in the long run, then this strategy can work pretty well, if not, you'll still have the overall saving problem, just with a longer wish list. That said, if you are good about saving already and simply want to make better use of your disposable income, then having a longer list may also work to let you seek out better deals for you. If you have funds that you know you can healthily spend on enjoyment, it is going to be difficult to choose nothing over something that gives enjoyment, even if it isn't a great return on the money. If you have alternatives that would give you better value, then it's easier to avoid the low value option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df1ce9c8d22bd8f023544de2677cc8c6", "text": "\"There's a reason that you get a discount code: to make you feel like you're getting a deal. A deal is what you get when there was something that you were already going to buy, and you got it for a lower price than you were going to originally spend on it. If you learn to look at \"\"rewards\"\" as a marketing ploy that is designed only to get your business, then it's easier to ignore them. But if you really do want a thing, and is is a thing that you are going to use, then by all means, go for it! Buy it, and use those rewards and enjoy them. Otherwise you're just giving your money to someone else for no good reason. And if you want to do that, you should just give it to me. At least I'm honest about it :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "163def80a80e57b6e03a993f56567747", "text": "\"Long ago, a friend of mine shared with me the \"\"Lakshmi rule\"\" which can be used for managing one's spending: 1/3rd: Save, 1/3rd: Donate, 1/3rd: Survival. Survival refers to primary needs like food, clothing, shelter, medicine, family and priority needs like travel. The word \"\"Lakshmi\"\" comes from the Sanskrit language and is often used to denote money, wealth or opulence. Its etymological meaning is - to perceive, understand, objective, observe, to know etc. As per ancient thought leaders, wealth is to be used wisely and with great care. Carelessness and misuse of it means havoc not only in one's own life but also on a community level. Rather than seeing money as a source of one's own happiness, it should be used as tool for the larger good. This will give proper fulfillment in life and helps one shy away from spending on those little things which only give temporary happiness. Having a deeper perspective to our everyday actions and situations, can help develop beneficial habits that easily helps control one's impulsive urges and distractions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18", "text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cd532c8fa8610c87b3a63444613790b2", "text": "Budget out the amount you save and owe per month. Make sure that amount doesn't stay liquid, invest it, send it out. Make it go away. Learn to live in the rest. If you still have some left over then enjoy the impulse buying (why not). Second rule, try to payout your credit cards every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "267dbf368dc8cd2fc8151bd1e078accc", "text": "I think you need to have the experience of over-consumption to realize that buying more stuff won't make you happy. And then when you see TV commercials and ads everywhere, you no longer will want the stuff. When you do that, then you slow down and start to value spending time with the people important to you, doing stuff and going places with them. It's the experiences that count, and some of the most fun and memorable stuff you can do is free or cheap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "301bfdde2a9a2b9e9e1161c2eb7aba16", "text": "You can't both enforce saving and have access to the money -- from what you say, it's clear that if you can access the money you will spend it. Can you find an account that allows one withdrawal every six months but no more, which should help to cut down on the impulse buys but still let you get at your money in an emergency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd862e04a2e145e96152e31acf77ebaa", "text": "\"First, you must prioritize what a \"\"need\"\" and what a \"\"want\"\" is. This is different for everyone but generally, I think most people will agree that impulse items are \"\"want\"\" items. Look at the item, hold it, put it back and wait 30 days. Put the money that the item costs $x into your savings account (transfer from checking, straight deposit, etc) Come back to the store and hold the item again and as \"\"did I miss the fact that I didnt get it 30 days ago?\"\". 95% of the time, the answer is no. You saved $x for 30-days, and received what is a tiny bit of interest for it. This is cause for celebration! If you repeat this for every item you THINK you \"\"need\"\" or \"\"want\"\" then you'll be amazed at what you saved. Dont waste this money on a vacation to the islands either! Keep saving. There will be plenty of rainy days when you'll have wanted to trade that island vacation (or the impulse items you bought that you used once or twice and are lost in your garage somewhere) to pay for some unexpected emergency. Trust me on this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab2e33242dd7429fea27ae355e2ed0a4", "text": "\"For me, it would be hard to leave all forms of money at home (cash, credit card, debit card.) There are times when you simply need to have money on hand. But, here's a simple idea I have that lets you bring your cards with you, yet still puts up a hurdle to curb impulse buying. When you're in a situation where you want to buy something, the card that's in your wallet/purse will be wrapped in your crafted \"\"reminder envelope.\"\" You'll see the reminder, which is hopefully enough. Then, in order to make a purchase you'll need to tear it open. That should get you to think twice. The one problem with the above is online purchases: If you have memorized your card information, add this rule for yourself: No online purchases without the payment card present and visible. (i.e. you also must tear open the envelope for online purchases.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b131c244e5b41d0188aca3f0f93a143c", "text": "\"In the end, this is really not a finance question. It's about changing one's habits. (One step removed, however, since you are helping a friend and not seeking advice for yourself). I've learned a simple cause & effect question - Does someone who wants (goal here) do (this current bad habit)? For example, someone with weight to lose is about to grab the chips to sit and watch TV. They should quickly ask themselves \"\"Does a healthy, energetic person sit in front of the TV eating chips?\"\" The friend needs to make a connection between the expense he'd like to save up for and his current actions. There's a conscious decision in making the takeout purchase, he'd rather spend the money on that meal than to save .5% (or whatever percent) of the trip's cost. If he is clueless in the kitchen, that opens another discussion, one in which I'd remark that on the short list of things parents should teach their kids, cooking is up there. My wife is clueless in the kitchen, I taught our daughter how to be comfortable enough to make her own meals when she wants or when she's off on her own. If this is truly your friend's issue, you might need to be a cooking spirit guide to be successful.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ec63deaac1b4eddbad2daa9b6f0c13", "text": "Apart from what others have contributed. Look at all your usual spendings. Can they be cheaper? (Telephone, Electricity, Gas, Car, Mortgage, Loans, Insurance...) Whenever you are tempted to buy anything, ask yourself: Do I need this? If the answer is 'Yes' go ahead and buy (food, basically). Otherwise, restrain yourself. Most things in life can be bought cheaper. Most things in shops are useless. For example, how many pairs of shoes do you need? You can drink water from the tab. You don't have to go to restaurants or bars, and if you do, you could budget yourself to some amount. If the restaurant is more expensive, walk. My 0,02€", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ad08fc0ab8ad1ece6c26bf0a5529da4", "text": "When you're selling something through a provider, like Craig's List or newspapers, the only thing that may limit your choices is the provider. They may refuse your post if it's against their rules or the law. But luckily they usually don't limit or enforce certain payment choices. These private business providers have the right to do so if they want. You don't need to be their customer. They may state their terms for using the service and even refuse service (before any payment is made). The fun part is that you may do so as well. Just remember to state your terms in your post so the prospective buyers are aware of them. I've found it best to put payment and delivery terms in separate lines so that they are easily noticeable, for example: Nice victorian handbasket with gold embroidery, only used once. Signed by the original author. Comes with a certificate of authenticity. No delivery, only cash payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc42d8ae9f3c8806be1440b68ecf5bb5", "text": "If your goal is to make it harder for you to use to make impulse purchases then YES. Having to always have cash for purchases will make you less likely to make impulse purchases you don't really need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cebbad15de772301ffdbb5dedcc51fd7", "text": "Perhaps you take it a step further and go cash only. Cash only will make it just another step harder to spend your cash. Also split your money into multiple accounts. Checking that auto pays bills, a savings, and an investment account. You have to want to change to change. Post a blog and public calendar with your expenses and that might make you think twice about spending your money. If you don't want to tell everybody else, maybe you don't spend it. Perhaps see a shrink too. You need help identifying patterns before you do them, and having insight into your motivations could help. I am not saying go forever, but perhaps a few sessions or a couple of months. You might be addicted to spending. Join a group and talk about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3a0a37a52aa731dca51d89e0f04e766", "text": "So I am in this position with my grandmother and she is in her late 90s and wants to give us some of her things. There are some items I would want, but there are a lot of other things that I don't want. So when she wants to give me things now, I have to be delicate about it. I don't want to be inundated with everything and the things I would want now she is still using so I will happily wait.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3990625113d4d472df79a83f6d924025", "text": "I agree with the first poster- the first step is to measure your spending and put it down into raw numbers. Once you have the raw numbers, you will feel a natural inclination to improve on those numbers. Set yourself a daily target for cash / incidental expenses. It doesnt have to be a crazy target - just something you can achieve easily. Mark a 'tick' mark next to every day on the calendar that you meet that target (or spend less than the target). Gradually the momentum from the past few 'ticks' will automatically compel you to want to tick off the next day. At the end of each week, lower the target a little. You'll find that when you start measuring your expenditure, you become more aware of how you might be wasting money. All too often we just go out and buy stuff we don't need without really thinking about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5c9397a24f3551e0114b3e5a9a051b1", "text": "Yeah, fuck those hippies, making you shop at stores you don't want to and buy products you don't want to. Tip 1: grab from the back for perishables. Tip 2: pretty sure they'll do a refund or exchange on about anything for about any reason. Never tried it, though I have also been burned by early mold.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9b9529a6b2b1abc773e9950634e8cee", "text": "Since you ask.... How do I do it? My frugality doesn't come from budgeting or even half so much from keeping money away from myself (though mostly-one-way retirement accounts help). It's a matter of world-view. Spending and shopping for things you don't need is a vice. Limit your indulgence in it. I've also made wasteful purchases in my life. When I find myself considering buying something that I don't really need, I ask myself whether it will end up like... like the stupid eyeglass cleaner gadget from the Sharper Image that I used twice. Or the Bluetooth earpiece that spent 98% of its time lost and .02% of its time in my ear. Or the little Sony VAIO laptop which was great on the train, but probably cost 8 times as much as an EeePC and didn't do way too much more. (In my defense on that one, it was just before netbooks were really taking off... but I still felt bad about it the next year). I've also got two savings goals. The first is responsible and very big (financial stability: a year's expenses plus money for a down payment on a house. a California house. in a good neighborhood.) The second is personal and just medium-big (a large musical instrument). I've decided not to spend money on the second until I'm financially stable and I have enough money to take care of the first... so that makes me more willing to scrimp and save to pursue the first than I would be otherwise. Advice for others? Ask yourself: Why are you buying that thing? You can survive without it, can't you? You didn't need it a week ago, did you? Does the old one have holes in it or something? Or will you at least use it regularly, for years? Why aren't you buying the cheaper kind? Or buying it used?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb3441ad32525ab242231c247a860201", "text": "\"There is also the very simple fact that cash is a *significantly* self-limiting thing: you are limited in amount you can spend on any give day to the cash you have on hand -- this along makes you either reticent to spend it, forces you to spread your purchases (or forgo one in order to enable another), and/or requires additional planning to spend larger amounts. Conversely, most debit &amp; credit cards while they also have some limits on them, enable far more free spending. So whether the spending of cash is a negative \"\"painful\"\" reaction, or really just an awareness that their available resource is being reduced, would be a better question. After all, similar things are seen in other things that have short-term physical limits: smokers tend to smoke cigarettes more quickly at the beginning of a new pack, and tend to space out the intervals between them as the pack empties; likewise with other resources (food, beer, soda) within a home -- if/when the supply is abundant, we tend to gorge &amp; snack, as the available supply decreases, we cut back.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c94de75bcebf143a6c9791fcdcc7873c", "text": "\"I wouldn't try to tell him what he should do, nor would I provide any financial assistance. Invite him over and tell him how a Dave Ramsey book changed your life or something so that you aren't the one telling him what to do. People in fundamentally and persistently bad situations are like people with addiction problems... they tend to end up \"\"killing the messenger\"\" before internalizing that they are in a bad situation. They need to hit rock bottom before you can really help.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71b21fd13403926ec1a6b658feec315f", "text": "Talk about opportunity cost. Show a rope, and put a tag with him on the end of it. Explain that since he has max out his credit, he can no longer get more. Without more credit here are the things he can't have The key to illustrate is that all the money he makes, for the next several years is obligated to the people he has already borrowed it from. Try to have him imagine giving his entire paycheck to a bank, and then doing that for the next five years. To drive it home, point out that there are 5 super bowls, 5 college championship games, 5 final fours, 5 annual concerts he likes, 5 model years of cars, 5 or more iPhone versions in those five years. Or whatever he is into. 5 years of laptops, 5 years of fishing trips. These things are not affordable to him right now. He has already spent his money for the next 5 years, and those are the things he cannot have because he is, in fact, out of cash. Furthermore, if he continues, the credit will dry up completely and his 5 year horizon could easily become ten. To illustrate how long 5 or 10 years is, have him remember that 10 years ago he might have been in college or the military. That 5 years ago Facebook was no big thing. That 5 years ago the Razr was an awesome phone. That 5 years ago we had a different president.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "342907a32e36ed3678f38406ea49c030", "text": "The key idea he should focus on is that every debt includes interest - the money he didn't borrow, but now owes. The interest goes straight to the lender pocket and the debtor has to get money somewhere for that interest. That's the key reason of why getting another loan only increases pressure on the debtor - with the new loan he owes new interest in addition to what he already owed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c8849a352fb9477a84f1711a4dafd30", "text": "\"Two suggestions: I don't know if you have them in South Africa, but here we have some TV reality shows where a credit consultant visits a family that is deeply in debt and advises them on how to get out of it. The advice isn't very sophisticated, but it does show the personal impact on a family and what is likely to happen to them in the future. \"\"All Maxed Out\"\" is the name of the one I remember. \"\"Till Debt Us Do Part\"\" is another, which focusses on married couples and the stress debt puts on a marriage. If you can find a similar one, loan him a few episodes. Alternatively, how about getting him to a professional debt counsellor?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d4199c0128572c50ece971a7a9078e1", "text": "\"If you're looking for an analogy or exercise, I saw a personal finance show that had people climb stairs, with the debt as weight. Every flight of stairs more \"\"interest\"\" and loans to cover income gaps have to be added to the total debt they carry up the stairs. Can't find the video online though. But I think you need to ask your brother what he thinks his problem is, that will be solved with more loans. It's likely that your brother's problem can't be solved with advice. Since he's not spending rationally, rational arguments have no sway. I suspect he'll tell you his problem is one or two angry creditors, perhaps even ones you don't know about, rather than a fundamental imbalance between income and expenses. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or moving weights from one backpack compartment to another, doesn't solve the underlying problems. Whatever you do, another loan from you should be off the table. He's an adult now, with problems the size of which you can't help with. We both know how his story ends: all creditors cut him off, and he's in court over garnished wages and creditors fighting over his assets. Reality is the only argument that will have any sway. He's far too personally invested in his scheme to admit defeat, which is why neither words not images nor moving pictures will help him with this learning disability.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b124552274baa20504142a0e664eedf", "text": "How about doing some calculations and show him how much he is paying for things he is buying on credit.Mix in some big and small purchases to show how silly it is on both. Some examples: What really made the debt issue hit home for me (no pun intended) was when I bought my first house and read the truth in lending disclosure statements to find that a $70K house (those were the days) was going to cost me over $200K by the time I had paid off a 30 year note.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0d87eaa0bb1c532220ac894df266ab6", "text": "I'm not good at persuasion, and I'm not an expert at any of this, but here's what I've been thinking. Rather than telling him that he shouldn't rack up more debt, I'd ask him whether he's planning for his debt levels to increase, remain static, or decrease over the next five years. Try to make it feel like he's the one reaching the conclusion that he should be decreasing his debt load. If he says that he's fine with his debt levels remaining static or increasing, then I don't have any further advice. If he says he's trying to decrease his debt level, but it's actually increasing, then maybe he's in denial.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c77bfc2b46e4d18c7bd369f7fc60d4b", "text": "The only thing that comes to mind is a recent HBO Real Sports segment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDjkbgrgcmo) on a couple of NFL players who blew all of their money. Seeing how they've ended up might make the right impression, but given that your brother ran up $148K in debt, I'm not optimistic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e868482836540c7dd427677dc7b31626", "text": "This is not the case with your brother only. There are many business which run on this premise. It goes till the time all the conditions are in control and get busted when things goes out of way. You have mentioned the loan amount and not the monthly repayment amount. Even if you say, a new loan will not solve his problem, what are the way out ? Telling things nicely sometime does not work especially when facts are otherwise. Hence you need to make a compete case study which should also consider his capacity to pay. As of now it seems he has debts of around 20 months of his earning, which can be considered high, depending upon the terms of major loan such as car loan and personal loan. A case study is way out. You can explain him with such case study that he should not go for further loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7983410bd30fee5ecb0154399b8cdd4f", "text": "I'm not sure how much living expenses are there but half of $12,600 in the US would be a decent monthly income. I agree that debt on debt would just add to his problems, sort of like quicksand, the interest will just makes a person sink deeper and deeper. It seems like it might take some more radical options here to pay off the debt. Like, could he move into a much smaller home or get a roommate? How expensive was that vehicle? Could he sell it and pay cash for a much cheaper used one and use the difference toward his debt? How much does he work? Could he get a second job for just a few hours to help make extra money? Is he willing to speak with a debt counselor?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9be42e459577d58781a762cf1344a6ee", "text": "The only fair thing to do is to let each of you pay their own loans. That way, your brother will probably get out of debt faster and starts saving or investing (assuming equal down payments), while you'll be stuck with your loan for a while longer. If you want to minimize the interests you have to pay, you could simply borrow money from your brother. That way, he'll contribute towards your loans, and you will know exactly how much you owe him. Your brother may lend you money interest-free, or you could agree on an interest rate which is lower than what you pay on your loans, which will somewhat compensate your brother and still be beneficial to you. It still won't be fair though, because your brother might be able to invest his extra money with better interest rate, and lending money to you would prevent that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dad8e600243a8bbb8cc771c4f13991af", "text": "It boils down to this: Who, or what, would you want to take care of financially if you were to die tomorrow? That's why you need life insurance. I'm pretty sure that your creditors would line up to receive payment from the life insurance check, so that's part of figuring out how much coverage you should have. The life insurance premiums are another monthly payment, of course, but every day there is a small chance that you could die. Insuring against that small chance vs. paying down your debt faster is a decision that needs to be made, and you (or your brother) are the ones that will make it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dbddf9edba9b7a2448a56ac23e84c63", "text": "I didn't like it very much, because he's confusing money with credit. Money is accumulated work, not debt. Suppose the farmer has apples and wants meat, but the hunter doesn't want apples. The farmer exchanges some apples for the miner's gold and barters that gold for the hunter's meat. All three of them have already worked to produce what they have. There's no debt involved, only the accumulated product of work. An economy cannot function on credit alone. The existence of accumulated work that somebody did before is essential for the existence of credit. Suppose the farmer promises a bushel of apples to the hunter and the hunter promises to get a deer for the farmer. Now the farmer needs a barrel to collect the apples and he promises to give some apples to the cooper. The cooper promises to make the barrel for the farmer. All we have up to this point are promises, but no one has done any work yet. Things won't start happening until the cooper does the work needed to make a barrel. The economy functions on work, not promises. The farmer may promise a million bushels of apples and the hunter may promise a million deer, but that's just fantasy. Now suppose the cooper dies. The farmer will have to get barrels from the neighboring town, so now he must give some apples to the carter who brings the barrel. The hunter will not get his full bushel of apples, he's experiencing inflation, the cost of apples has gone up. No matter what the farmer and the hunter promise to each other, the fact remains that the barrels must be brought from the other town. Economists like Paul Krugman seem to believe that everything can be fixed by increasing demand, but they totally ignore the costs of production. There exists plenty of demand in the US economy right now, but the cooper has died, the barrels must be brought from China.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "590852108b061575c8815783e9c46e36", "text": "\"My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons. Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective. Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively. But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view. \"\"Fair\"\" and \"\"unfair\"\" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is. This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings. I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories. You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible. This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history. (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally. This spending money (i.e., \"\"fun money\"\" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained. This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income. If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time. One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits. For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account. That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it. For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit. It's not \"\"fair\"\" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system. You're not \"\"funding her lifestyle\"\" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is. If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home? Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer). You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect. My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f422c0f802ac7f1df127f96a2e1c1e2", "text": "It's perfectly legal for your brother to make a loan to you. However those two transactions are separate. If he defaults on the LC loan because you didn't pay him, it's his responsibility. If you default on your loan with him, you've got big problems. Money + family/friends = scary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "792f5f24aa5e7ce8d40c3e058325a8c6", "text": "&gt;In addition, US debt is the safest debt. I am really sick of this argument. The U.S. is believed to be the safest debt at this point in time, but that won't necessarily always be the case. We have been taking on debt for 30 fucking years and at some point investors are going to see us as a risky investment and stop lending. At some point we are going to have abused our global reserve status to the point the world doesn't want to extend it to us anymore. How do people not get this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29fdf38ff4ab2c12206a69cea90ea65b", "text": "\"good vs \"\"bad\"\" debt in the context of that post. At least in the UK this can be a good tactic to reduce the cost of credit card debt. Some things to consider\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042dc9b3850f1e7673993a71b0c8770b", "text": "I think that he means that gold is debt the same way that money is debt, because gold for the longest time literally was money. Yes it is also a commodity, but it and silver were the only commodity universally accepted in exchange for promissory notes. There was no apple reserve, shoe reserve or deer reserve as in OP's explanation, that the town priest held on to in which to make those notes credible for tender around town. So basically everyone decided that instead of trading a bushel for apples for some deer meat, they decided they would trade the apples for gold, then they would trade that gold for the deer meat. They used the gold because they knew it was a real, tangible thing that was safely tucked away. No bad deer season or bad harvest would affect the actual gold itself, which is why it was used as the middleman in the transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24a7533a6ac4f619017ae8fdbdfdec27", "text": "What he is saying is, you borrow lots of money and put it into my business and my business will go up in value and therefore between us we are richer. What he doesn't say is, if his business profits are going to pay off the debt you have accrued. We all know the answer to this but his supporters are so blind in their loyalty that they will miss it. Also known as corporate welfare.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e1e527e43b03ce3729675479ed7ba0b", "text": "Hire a lawyer familiar with transactional law and they will have a examples in house. Any debt that large will have nuances that Google or Reddit can't help you with. A term sheet is a term sheet but you will want it to be substantial and air tight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f965812cc529c08321ba0bf1bdb1abe0", "text": "It doesn't really make sense to cure indebtedness with more debt. This is why your friend is having trouble finding someone to loan him money. If he can't borrow at a lower rate then he should probably focus on paying down some of his debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a063c0e3d308e707580d58ac1b53af9", "text": "\"Short answer: don't do it. Unless you know something that the bank doesn't, it's safe to assume that banks are a lot better at assessing risk than you are. If they think he can't afford it, odds are he can't afford it regardless of what he might say to the contrary. In this case, the best answer may be \"\"sorry for your luck;\"\" you could recommend that he comes up with a larger down payment to reduce his monthly payment (or that he find a way to get some extra income) rather than getting you to cosign. Please also see this article by Dave Ramsey on why you should never cosign loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec55ffc0afb013f63119e61c57879329", "text": "\"Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong. Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. \"\"I know I promised to pay \\$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand.\"\" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. \"\"You promised you'd pay it back.\"\" \"\"And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?\"\" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, \"\"Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash.\"\" \"\"I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't.\"\" \"\"Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it.\"\" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54a054381c61a8a014d7aec236cfb8c2", "text": "The biggest issue with personal bankruptcy is the guilt. We generally are brought up to believe that we should be responsible for our debts. Bankruptcy is a direct contradiction to that concept. Once a debtor realizes that corporations don't necessarily view bankruptcy as failure, but merely a financial tool, that makes it a lot easier to let go of the guilt. Once that happens, all a debtor needs to get used to is the idea that s/he'll be dealing with a cash economy for a while. Which isn't a particularly bad thing at all. Inconvenient at times, but that's about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5", "text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2bcc8b74c04144dc676027c589f65a93", "text": "It is certainly legal to transfer money between people, no matter how often, as long as the money is not originally from illegal sources. If you are gaining in the process, you need to pay taxes on your (net) gain, as on any income; but as always, taxed income is still income. Consider the accumulating transaction cost, the inherent risk (of your friend keeping the money), and the risk of the exchange rate going the other way; but otherwise it is a simple arbitrage business. There are thousands of people who do that all year long at stock exchanges and money markets; you might be able to do it more efficient there, and you don't need a 'friend' on the other side for that.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "518804c68cb84104740402d5c0394688", "text": "\"No, but it's serving the same purpose, which is to hide the original origin of a sum of money. Both examples involve moving money from one source to another, when both the source and the sink are in actuality the same entity managed and run by the same people. Both involve doing it in order to hide the money from those who would otherwise have a right to a portion of it. In this case, it is those with a right on the \"\"net\"\". In Starbucks UK, it's the UK government.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c30ad0006a1e499ae485f0a559057c3", "text": "\"You can accept almost anything mutually agreeable to you and the other party as payment. That's the definition of \"\"barter\"\". If you agree to trade manufactured goods for livestock, as long as both parties agree on the terms, I'm not aware of any law that would prohibit it. I hedged with \"\"almost\"\" because of course you can't accept something that is explicitly illegal. Like you can't say you'll accept cocaine as payment. Less obviously, there are laws regulating the sale of guns, nuclear fuel, agricultural products, etc. You'd still have to pay taxes, and it can get complicated to determine the taxable value of the transaction. Sorry, but you can't avoid taxes by getting your income in something other than cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5c208aa15db85fd959b6995ab8b9298", "text": "In short getting funds converted outside of the Banking channel is illegal in India as Foreign Exchange is still regulated. If you show only a credit from your friend's NRE account to your NRO account [note it can't be your NRE account], it would be treated as GIFT and taxed accordingly, else you would have to show it as loan and pay back. You may show the payback in USD. But then there is a limit of Fx every individual can get converted/repatriate out of India and there is a purpose of remittance, all these complicate this further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8872ea7a2ea65d86a4e2086ad3fcac2d", "text": "In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71cd751d9d50bc1f90608b1e6d667ad1", "text": "Is there a limit on how much I can send? Can I send $100K plus? No. Yes. What is the most appropriate way to send money - international wire? Is there international-wire limit restrictions I need to be aware of? Yes. No. Is there any tax obligation should I be aware of when sending money home? If you're a US tax resident (which, as a US citizen, you are), you should be aware of gift tax rules. You'll probably want to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and/or attorney, to understand the ramifications in full. If my family can return my money back in future, great, if not I really don't care, but when (if) I get my money back, will I have to pay taxes on bringing my own money back into US? No. But if you're giving it as a loan - you'll get paid interest which is taxable income to you. Is there anything else do I need to be aware of? The rules of the country which you're sending the money to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a267f88078a1e0814649c590faee225f", "text": "I'd be a bit concerned about someone who wanted to transact that large of a transaction in cash. Also consider what you are going to do with the funds, if you deposit it, you will need to tell the bank where it comes from. Why does the bank want to know, because most legal businesses don't transact business with large sums of currency.. What does that tell you about the likelihood the person you are about to do business with is a criminal or involved in criminal affairs? The lower bill of sale price might be more than just to dodge taxes, it could be part of money laundering.. If they can turn right around and 'sell' the boat for $10K, or trade it in on a bigger boat for the same amount, and have a bill than says $4K, then they have just come up with a legal explanation for how they made 6 grand. and you could potentially be considered an accomplice if someone is checking up on their finances. Really, is it worth the risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97ccccec31fb0dd649a0ae28d41d3726", "text": "There's a difference between your street level drug dealer sending you sales proceeds of $20,000 in $5,000 increments to avoid sending you $10,000 or $20,000 at once to avoid the scrutiny of a government agency that might not be thrilled with your business venture, and a tire shop paying a wholesaler $5,000 each time funds are available up to the amount owed of $20,000. The former is illegal for a few reasons, and the latter is business as usual.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8d2b79642f69b96d682fd6049896ed9", "text": "I won't think so. Too much trouble for the compliance and internal audit team. Unless you are moving money from Russia, Iran or those non-FATCA countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cda9331c5800927240653668f7334abc", "text": "\"Wikipedia has a list of countries which ban foreign exchange use by its citizens. It's actually quite short but does include India and China. Sometimes economic collapse limits enforcement. For example, after the collapse of the Zimbabwean dollar (and its government running out of sufficient foreign exchange to buy the paper necessary to print more), the state turned a blind eye as the US dollar and South African rand became de facto exchange. Practicality will limit the availability of foreign exchange even in free-market economies. The average business can't afford to have a wide range of alternative currencies sitting around. Businesses which cater to large numbers of addled tourists sometimes offer one or two alternative currencies in the hopes of charging usurous rates of exchange. Even bureaux de change sometimes require you to order your \"\"rarer\"\" foreign exchange in advance. So, while it may be legal, it isn't always feasible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7abe3fcd1e22f5fcc643dd8b81f6c9d4", "text": "Age old rules about money scams: If a person A wants to send money to person B, they do the following: Person A sends money to person B. Neither of them sends money to you, and you don't send money to either of them. It doesn't make sense! If you give someone money, be prepared that you might not receive that money back. If someone gives you money, be prepared that they can get that money back. Illegal money laundering can put you in jail, even if you pretend to be a blameless victim of a scammer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "232c8e97302d52805bbf4981814ff9d3", "text": "They made 85 billion from this fiasco....16 is a somewhat fraction of it.... Like HSBC smuggling cocaine for the cartels, they made 15 billion, got a fine of 2. Tell me what other criminal activities net you a profit once you are caught red handed doing so?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d950755a8b61ed3e9d7451cdd84b0b3", "text": "\"Im not sure, but let me try. \"\"That person\"\" won't affect the value of currency, after two (or three) years (maybe months), agencies will report anomalies in country. Will be start the end of market. God bless FBI and NSA for prevent this. Actually, good \"\"hypothetical\"\" question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07a3309a18a2c1be2bdf75d191c98722", "text": "If this is your money, and if you can - if asked - prove that you legally made it, there is no limit. You pay taxes on your income, so sending it into the world is tax free. Your citizenship is not relevant for that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e90732e325599af6175216e695a35f", "text": "It would be better for you to sell yourself and pay capital gains tax than to transfer to your parents and pay the gift tax. Also, sham transfer (you transfer to your mother only so that she could sell and transfer back to you without you paying taxes) will be probably categorized as tax evasion, which is a criminal offense that could lead to your deportation. What the US should or should not claim you can take to your congressman, but the fact is that the US does claim tax on capital gains even if you bought the asset before becoming US tax resident, and that's the current law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abcb1b0b0dcb18fd1442e0ce54d706b1", "text": "So your dollar never leaves America until it leaves for an investment - which would be FDI. If you sent the dollar home to Mexico, that’s a remittance current account flow. Then later, you want to use that dollar for a housing investment in Mexico, it’s just domestic investment. If you move to the US, I believe that’s another remittance flow (though it might even be a service flow because the bank is the one moving the dollar!). Then to invest in Mexico you need to go through an FDI channel.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dbb10172a87f97e2c6bcb5de0815d6b5", "text": "Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d", "text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7", "text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90e128fedd7f4d35a22072d1b0e50533", "text": "After doing this many times, my preferred method is: The reason being that the US banks will use every chance possible to take your money in fees. Usually the German bank website will tell you what the current exchange rate. You were correct in selecting Transfer in $ and got the exchange rate. In my experience if you transfer in Euros, the US bank at the other end, will take about 3-5%, because they can. Selecting OUR means that you only have the fee taken out by the Source bank. By doing shared, it looks like both banks took their full fee. If you chose OUR, I'm fairly certain you just would have paid the 1.50 and the 20. Chase would not have taken the 15.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "575209e45e0e9bd0338345afba9058eb", "text": "\"I'd recommend an online FX broker like XE Trade at xe.com. There are no fees charged by XE other than the spread on the FX conversion itself (which you'll pay anywhere). They have payment clearing facilities in several countries (including UK BACS) so provided you're dealing with a major currency it should be possible to transfer money \"\"free\"\" (of wire charges at least). The FX spread will be much better than you would get from a bank (since FX is their primary business). The additional risk you take on is settlement risk. XE will not pay the sterling amount to your UK bank account until they have received the Euro payment into their account. If XE went bankrupt before crediting your UK account, but after you've paid them your Euros - you could lose your money. XE is backed by Custom House, which is a large and established Canadian firm - so this risk is very small indeed. There are other choices out there too, UKForex is another that comes to mind - although XE's rates have been the best of those I've tried.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d5612af7d495b352eeb63110fcfde9a", "text": "He can send you a check. This will move the burden of GBP->USD conversion to him (unless the GBP amount is preset, then you'll be the one to pay for conversion either way). You can then deposit the USD check in any Israeli bank (they'll charge commission for the deposit and the USD->ILS conversion). Another, and from my experience significantly cheaper, option would be to wire transfer directly to your account. If you have a USD account and he'll transfer USD out - it will be almost at no cost to you, if you don't have a USD account check with your bank how to open it, or pay for USD->ILS conversion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eef52c6fb4e81d9bf9b71b4041321c19", "text": "Probably the easiest to do is to do an international transfer via online banking. You will need to give your IBAN and BIC/SWIFT code of your bank to your friend, he should then be able to transfer the money from his bank. At least, I think they use IBAN in Israel as well. The money will be converted to the currency of your account. There are some fees, but they are not too big I think, and depending on the choice of transfer they can be paid by sender, shared, or by receiver. Contact your bank for precise details. Edit: if you really need to be paid in USD this may not be the best option though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c75297b62f73553ec352cda7a9fff1b6", "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.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baaa0dc7d6d940f6aa51f2bc7297996e", "text": "I did this for a few years and the best way I found was via http://xe.com/ It uses a bank transfer from your UK bank to xe.com (no fees from bank or xe). On the Canadian side, they use EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer, no fees from bank or xe.com) They have very competitive exchange rates. To make a transfer, you log in to xe and arrange your transfer. This locks in the rate and tells you how many GBP you need to transfer in. Then, transfer your money from the UK bank into xe using the details they provide. Two or three days later the money shows up in your Canadian acount. There's a bit of paperwork they need to set it up but it's not very hard. After it's set up, everything else is online. Enjoy!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454", "text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f91d84f1a43125d0d28f4dd642bb6f", "text": "Well, one way I avoid all exchange fees is to trade currency with an individual. There's no trick, though. Just find a friend or family member on the other side of the border who wants your USD or your CAD, look up the exchange rate for the day, and hand over the money (or write each other checks). It's win-win because both sides are getting a good deal with no fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfd87f95d5dc32ae3574eb5568be2f3c", "text": "\"There isn't a single rate that works in both directions. There are two rates, one for each direction. So if $1 = 64.23 INR, you may find that 100 INR = $1.55. In fact, it's even worse than that. The \"\"rates\"\" are just the average values at which transactions occur. What happens in the real world is that someone (presumably your bank in this instance) offers to sell 100 INR for some amount, perhaps $1.56. Other traders may either accept this price or refuse to trade. If they refuse to trade, the bank may accept one of their offers, perhaps $1.55. Anyway, the answer to your question is that whomever does the actual conversion keeps the \"\"difference\"\". Of course, they may then lose that money if the value falls before they sell. More confusingly, either your bank or your friend's bank could do the conversion itself. Either or both could hold balances in various currencies so that they don't have to rely on the vagaries of the exchange market. This is called a money market account, and banks let their customers invest in them. It is a bit more likely to be your bank that gets the money than your friend's bank. Your friend's bank doesn't actually need to know that your account is in USD. They just transfer the amount in INR. It's your bank that has to convert that into USD to deposit in your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9c7a2b4d3a134dcd6af5b51cad29cc", "text": "I've been using xetrade for quite awhile, also used nzforex (associated with ozforex / canadian forex, probably ukforex as well) -- xetrade has slightly better rates than I've gotten at nzforex, so I've been using them primarily. That said, I am in the process of opening an account at CurrencyFair, because it appears that I'll be able to exchange money at better rates there. (XETrade charges me 1.5% off the rate you see at xe.com -- which is the FX conversion fee I believe -- there are no fees other than the spread charged). I think the reason CurrencyFair may be able to do better is because the exchange is based on the peer-to-peer trade, so you could theoretically get a deal better than xe.com. I'll update my answer here after I've been using CurrencyFair for awhile, and let you know. They theoretically guarantee no worse than 0.5% though (+ $4.00 / withdrawal) -- so I think it'll save me quite a bit of money.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4c020f3c37abccf66e1d71bf9f09dc55", "text": "what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d366215b375cef0820dc85e6d867f191", "text": "I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c964a2755a0c7300abb81a9c680931f6", "text": "It certainly creates an opportunity for the re-distribution of wealth. Money will be transferred from insurance companies to construction companies. Businesses that go under will be replaced by ones that survived. Some companies will make a profit out of this, but as you have already figured out, no new wealth is created by the disaster. (Although lots has been destroyed, so we are looking at a net loss.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571bbf2ec41f30bc870081d15d4d138", "text": "Summarized article: On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped almost 275 points and wiped out the last of the index's gains for the year. Friday's massive selloff was triggered by a dismal US jobs report and data indicating a European and Chinese economic slowdown. Friday was the worst day of the year for the market. Worried investors moved cash to the US Treasury bond market which also dragged the yield to a record low. Some analysts believe the panic in the market may cause the Federal Reserve to plan for additional stimulus. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to speak next week. *For more summarized news, subscribe to the [/r/SkimThat](http://www.reddit.com/r/SkimThat) subreddit*", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b490195aee0c5351658b1edfd90ba3", "text": "If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc", "text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a35d8a21693b605106176989414fed", "text": "This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today. The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9ff7c27a27a446f5031e35247d5294", "text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b70a0767127af96e29b1b5b41b93e99", "text": "\"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bde89cbae187e5aa06f270f7c8a163", "text": "I think everyone assumes various segments of the market/economy are going to cool off at some point. The question isn't if it'll happen, but when, and how suddenly. I don't think it'll be that big of a deal if we see market corrections across stocks or real estate if they happen over the course of months, and if anything it'll be a relief to many. The trouble will be if it happens suddenly and 'violently,' as it did in 2007, causing bankruptcies, massive job losses and lasting damage. That probably depends more on whether or not this was an artificial bubble (caused by Fed policies, likely), like what caused the Great Recession, or if it's a more normal market cycles.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68379ec96b414de08349c1d219ab07ad", "text": "It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c365980654ce6e5d8b9aa27958f484e9", "text": "&gt; How is a loan an asset? To use your example, our starting books are $100 in cash (asset), which corresponds to $100 in equity. We then loan out $20 with a future return of $25, so our books have changed to $80 cash, $25 in collectable loans (assets), $20 in loan liabilities, and $80 in equity + $5 in interest revenue. &gt; I cannot be acting like I HAVE that 20$ can I? Not really, and lending banks are regulated very tightly by having both required minimum capital adequacy ratios (basically how many loans you can have out for a given amount of equity) and annual stress testing by the Fed (CCAR). &gt; Isn't that how the 08' crash happened? Is the risk of default accounted for? No and yes. Lending banks weren't really responsible for the crash and it certainly wasn't because of over-lending. The problem was that the mortgage backed securities that banks were trading were (at the time) not properly valued to account for their risk, and the resulting insurance contracts (Credit Default Obligations, or CDOs) were improperly priced *and* leveraged. The CDOs were overly complicated, and made some strong statistical assumptions about the underlying assets (the MBSs and the individual mortgages within them) that lead to a systemic underestimation of risk (autocorrelation in default probabilities, esp.) Banks since then have dramatically increased the size of their risk management departments, and I think it's fairly unlikely we see another systemic mispricing like that for some time. &gt; default risk is not transferred with the asset I don't agree with this in the basic cases. If I sell you the rights to collect a loan that I wrote, then absent of any other contract you will bear the full risk of the borrower defaulting. &gt; how can it possibly be sold in such a way that the risk of default is detached Credit default swaps and other forms of insurance contracts. I could sell you the loan as above, but then you could buy an insurance contract on the loan that pays out if the borrower defaults. In other words, either the loan stays alive and you collect interest as normal, or it defaults and you receive some payout from the insurance contract which limits your downside risk. Just about every large financial institution will have themselves hedged like this to some extent, though perhaps by other means. Regarding your overall question about student loan defaults, I'm in the camp that believes they're an overstated direct* risk. It's currently not possible to default on a student loan, and if the law allowing student loan bankruptcy came in to effect, I think we'd see a large adjustment of interest rates on student loans (and probably consumer loans, etc. as well) to compensate for the increased risk of holding these loans. *Direct risk referring to the risk to the loan holder. I think there is a risk that consumer spending becomes weighed down by the burden of large loans. However, I also don't think this would appear as a sudden market shock, and would likely manifest over an extended period of time. Just my thoughts, I'm sure there are some people who'll disagree with me on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b807557ba137c1143736dc37981715b", "text": "I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c4a6165ef1f2a21b51bb5577e609515", "text": "I would say the real story is less about the implications of low vol but rather what has caused it. IMO that would be: 1) lots of money chasing a handful of investments a) loose monetary policy b) wealth effects from fantastic returns since the GR c) consolidation in various sectors (health, energy, tech) 2) rise of low cost index funds (all inflow go into the large swathes of the market so volatility across stocks is dampened) 3) various externalities of expansionary Fed policy a) resulting low bond yields lead to larger flows into equities b) low cost of debt feeding buybacks c) it has been sustained for so long it has had stabilizing effect i.e. predictability is good for markets and business decision making These factors make for an interesting story because what happens when some component of this system begins to show cracks? What happens when this low vol feedback loop ceases? Nobody knows. But it will not continue ad infinitum. Not all doom and gloom but it won't be the market we are used to today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827", "text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0765778b69a0befaa7950d21c9663cf4", "text": "Anti-Facebook circlejerk continues. Where were these articles before it went public ? It makes it seem like bad for common investors when in reality they couldn't even get in on the stock. It was the institutional funds and connected investors who bought the stock at 38. The common market actually was the one that didn't support the stock once it went public. If anyone, it's the institutional funds that got screwed.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "34c9f459817d83133cb77ce55d4178e9", "text": "\"There are a few reason why the stock price decreases after a dividend is paid: What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? Companies have to do something with their profits. They beholden to their shareholders to make them money either by increasing the share value or paying dividends. So they have the choice between reinvesting their profits into the company to grow the business or just handing the profits directly to the owners of the business (the shareholders). Some companies are as big as they want to be and investing their profits into more capital offers them diminishing returns. These companies are more likely to pay dividends to their shareholders. I assume the price of the stock \"\"naturally\"\" increases over the year to reflect the amount of the dividend payment. This is kind of a vague question but then doesn't it make it difficult to evaluate the fluctuations in stock price (in the way that you would a company that doesn't pay a dividend)? It depends on the company. The price may recover the dividend drop... could take a few days to a week. And that dependings on the company's performance and the overall market performance. With respect to options, I assume nothing special happens? So say I bought $9 call options yesterday that were in the money, all of a sudden they're just not? Is this typically priced into the option price? Is there anything else I need to know about buying options in companies that pay dividends? What if I had an in-the-money option, and all of a sudden out of nowhere a company decides to pay a dividend for the first time. Am I just screwed? One key is that dividends are announced in advance (typically at least, if not always; not sure if it's required by law but I wouldn't be surprised). This is one reason people will sometimes exercise a call option early, because they want to get the actual stock in order to earn the dividend. For \"\"out of the ordinary\"\" large cash dividends (over 10% is the guideline), stock splits, or other situations an option can be adjusted: http://www.888options.com/help/faq/splits.jsp#3 If you have an options account, they probably sent you a \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" booklet. It has a section discussing this topic and the details of what kinds of situations trigger an adjustment. A regular pre-announced <10% dividend does not, while a special large dividend would, is what I roughly get from it. That \"\"Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options\"\" is worth reading by the way; it's long and complicated, but well, options are complicated. Finally, do all companies reduce their stock price when they pay a dividend? Are they required to? I'm just shocked I've never heard of this before. The company doesn't directly control the stock price, but I do believe this is automatic. I think the market does this automatically because if they didn't, there would be enough people trying to do dividend capture arbitrage that it would ultimately drive down the price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9766dd1b2df118afefc9245a7f064a45", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05b1b33e24910e7bb07096aa6a84c789", "text": "The exchanges artificially push the price of the stock down on the ex-div date. Often the impact of paying the dividend is absorbed by the ebb and flow of trading in the stock later in the day by the market. I think this was noticable with Nokia because the company is in poor shape and the stock has plunged recently. Dividends are a great way for companies to return value to shareholders. The trend for many companies, particularly growth stocks is to reinvest profits to grow the company. Former growth stocks like Microsoft like to just sit on billions of dollars and do nothing with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae344d7b08ea5be0cb2b7470157192fb", "text": "Regarding: 1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? As dividends distribution dates and amounts are announced in advance, probably the stock price will rise of the same amount of the divident before the day of distribution. If I know that stock share A's value is y and the dividend announced is x, I would be willing to buy shares of A for anything > y and < than x+y before the distribution.So, arbitrageurs probably would take the price to x+y before the dividend distribution, and then after the dividend distribution the price will fall back to y.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba22f2742f109ebad589fa5564b85d94", "text": "1) What's the point of paying a dividend if the stock price automatically decreases? Don't the shareholders just break even? When the company earns cash beyond what is needed for expenses, the value of the firm increases. As a shareholder, you own a piece of that increased value as soon as the company earns it. When the dividend is paid, the value of the firm decreases, but you break even on the dividend transaction. The benefit to you in holding the company's shares is the continually increasing value, whether paid out to you, or retained. Be careful not to confuse the value of the firm with the stock price. The stock price is ever-changing, in the short-term driven mostly by investor emotion. Over the long term, by far the largest effect on stock price is earnings. Take an extreme, and simplistic example. The company never grows or shrinks, earnings are always the same, there is no inflation :) , and they pay everything out in dividends. By the reasoning above, the firm value never changes, so over the long-term the stock price will never change, but you still get your quarterly dividends.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "955455502d9a711735c3029de66b96ca", "text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6202d7f2fffaf7bd921b783fa5b62878", "text": "The stock will slowly gain that $1 during the year. Suppose we have the highly theoretical situation that a company's stock is worth exactly $10 right after it paid its dividend, its dividend is always $1 per stock, and the company and everything else is so stable that its value never changes. Then the stock value right before the next dividend is paid will be close to $11 -- after all, it's worth a certain $1 dividend the next day, plus the $10 stock. And in between, half a year after the dividend was paid, it will be in between, say $10.50, or actually slightly less than that (because people like to buy in late so they can make money some other way with the money first). But the point holds -- the price decrease on the day that dividend is paid had been building up the whole period before that decrease. So stock dividends do make you money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6fca6507c6160f5b23a2ec3fc63a5ec", "text": "In addition to the other answers, here's a proper strategy that implements your idea: If the options are priced properly they should account for future dividend payments, so all other things aside, a put option that is currently at the money should be in the money after the dividend, and hence more expensive than a put option that is out of the money today but at the money after the dividend has been paid. The unprotected futures (if priced correctly) should account for dividend payments based on the dividend history and, since maturing after the payment, should earn you (you sell them) less money because you deliver the physical after the dividend has been paid. The protected ones should reflect the expected total return value of the stock at the time of maturity (i.e. the dividend is mentally calculated into the price), and any dividend payments that happen on the way will be debited from your cash (and credited to the counterparty). Now that's the strategy that leaves you with nearly no risk (the only risk you bear is that the dividend isn't as high as you expected). But for that comfort you have to pay premiums. So to see if you're smarter than the market, subtract all the costs for the hedging instruments from your envisaged dividend yield and see if your still better than the lending rate. If so, do the trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ae7681cfe1d319898337f727b749fc4", "text": "Imagine you have a bank account with $100 in it. You are thinking about selling this bank account, so ask for some bids on what it's worth. You get quotes of around $100. You decide to sell it, but before you do, you take $50 out of it to have in cash. Would you expect the market to still pay $100 for the account? The dividend is effectively the cash being withdrawn. The stock had on account a large amount of cash (which was factored into it's share price), it moved that cash out of it's account (to its shareholders), and as a result the stock instantly becomes priced lower as this cash is no longer part of it, just as it is in the bank account example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed5fda8c033d8433225d658445dd9b8", "text": "\"Their is no arbitrage opportunity with \"\"buying dividends.\"\" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading \"\"ex\"\" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record. There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock. The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate. Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment. People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash. It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3579b4d63ec37eb5c5d6bd69bc16753a", "text": "This is called the gordon growth model (or dividend discount model). This is one way to value a stock, but in practice no one uses it because the assumptions are that companies will return value to investors solely via regular dividends, and that the growth rate and the required rate of return from investors are constants; among other issues.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "188c35f2cf0a3c4db73b1b2821dc442b", "text": "\"If a stock is trading for $11 per share just before a $1 per share dividend is declared, then the share price drops to $10 per share immediately following the declaration. If you owned 100 shares (valued at $1100) before the dividend was declared, then you still own 100 shares (now valued at $1000). Generally, if the dividend is paid today, only the owners of shares as of yesterday evening (or the day before maybe) get paid the dividend. If you bought those 100 shares only this morning, the dividend gets paid to the seller (who owned the stock until yesterday evening), not to you. You just \"\"bought a dividend:\"\" paying $1100 for 100 shares that are worth only $1000 at the end of the day, whereas if you had just been a little less eager to purchase right now, you could have bought those 100 shares for only $1000. But, looking at the bright side, if you bought the shares earlier than yesterday, you get paid the dividend. So, assuming that you bought the shares in timely fashion, your holdings just lost value and are worth only $1000. What you do have is the promise that in a couple of days time, you will be paid $100 as the dividend, thus restoring the asset value back to what it was earlier. Now, if you had asked your broker to re-invest the dividend back into the same stock, then, assuming that the stock price did not change in the interim due to normal market fluctuations, you would get another 10 shares for that $100 dividend making the value of your investment $1100 again (110 shares at $10 each), exactly what it was before the dividend was paid. If you didn't choose to reinvest the dividend, you would still have the 100 shares (worth $1000) plus $100 cash. So, regardless of what other investors choose to do, your asset value does not change as a result of the dividend. What does change is your net worth because that dividend amount is taxable (regardless of whether you chose to reinvest or not) and so your (tax) liability just increased.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6d9c87fc60a8c5f72ee0140b593d35", "text": "\"A stock, at its most basic, is worth exactly what someone else will pay to buy it right now (or in the near future), just like anything else of value. However, what someone's willing to pay for it is typically based on what the person can get from it. There are a couple of ways to value a stock. The first way is on expected earnings per share, most of would normally (but not always) be paid in dividends. This is a metric that can be calculated based on the most recently reported earnings, and can be estimated based on news about the company or the industry its in (or those of suppliers, likely buyers, etc) to predict future earnings. Let's say the stock price is exactly $100 right now, and you buy one share. In one quarter, the company is expected to pay out $2 per share in dividends. That is a 2% ROI realized in 3 months. If you took that $2 and blew it on... coffee, maybe, or you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd realize a total gain of $8 in one year, or in ROI terms an annual rate of 8%. However, if you reinvested the money, you'd be making money on that money, and would have a little more. You can calculate the exact percentage using the \"\"future value\"\" formula. Conversely, if you wanted to know what you should pay, given this level of earnings per share, to realize a given rate of return, you can use the \"\"present value\"\" formula. If you wanted a 9% return on your money, you'd pay less for the stock than its current value, all other things being equal. Vice-versa if you were happy with a lesser rate of return. The current rate of return based on stock price and current earnings is what the market as a whole is willing to tolerate. This is how bonds are valued, based on a desired rate of return by the market, and it also works for stocks, with the caveat that the dividends, and what you'll get back at the \"\"end\"\", are no longer constant as they are with a bond. Now, in your case, the company doesn't pay dividends. Ever. It simply retains all the earnings it's ever made, reinvesting them into doing new things or more things. By the above method, the rate of return from dividends alone is zero, and so the future value of your investment is whatever you paid for it. People don't like it when the best case for their money is that it just sits there. However, there's another way to think of the stock's value, which is it's more core definition; a share of the company itself. If the company is profitable, and keeps all this profit, then a share of the company equals, in part, a share of that retained earnings. This is very simplistic, but if the company's assets are worth 1 billion dollars, and it has one hundred million shares of stock, each share of stock is worth $10, because that's the value of that fraction of the company as divided up among all outstanding shares. If the company then reports earnings of $100 million, the value of the company is now 1.1 billion, and its stock should go up to $11 per share, because that's the new value of one ten-millionth of the company's value. Your ROI on this stock is $1, in whatever time period the reporting happens (typically quarterly, giving this stock a roughly 4% APY). This is a totally valid way to value stocks and to shop for them; it's very similar to how commodities, for instance gold, are bought and sold. Gold never pays you dividends. Doesn't give you voting rights either. Its value at any given time is solely what someone else will pay to have it. That's just fine with a lot of people right now; gold's currently trading at around $1,700 an ounce, and it's been the biggest moneymaker in our economy since the bottom fell out of the housing market (if you'd bought gold in 2008, you would have more than doubled your money in 4 years; I challenge you to find anything else that's done nearly as well over the same time). In reality, a combination of both of these valuation methods are used to value stocks. If a stock pays dividends, then each person gets money now, but because there's less retained earnings and thus less change in the total asset value of the company, the actual share price doesn't move (much). If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then people only get money when they cash out the actual stock, but if the company is profitable (Apple, BH, etc) then one share should grow in value as the value of that small fraction of the company continues to grow. Both of these are sources of ROI, and both are seen in a company that will both retain some earnings and pay out dividends on the rest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0c9b4874c0abd6793911216f8c490b", "text": "A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period. Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period. To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%. The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7dc405bb6c0a5643bd207f52b3bf406", "text": "\"According to the book of Hull, american and european calls on non-dividend paying stocks should have the same value. American puts, however, should be equals to, or more valuable than, european puts. The reason for this is the time value of money. In a put, you get the option to sell a stock at a given strike price. If you exercise this option at t=0, you receive the strike price at t=0 and can invest it at the risk-free rate. Lets imagine the rf rate is 10% and the strike price is 10$. this means at t=1, you would get 11.0517$. If, on the other hand, you did'nt exercise the option early, at t=1 you would simply receive the strike price (10$). Basically, the strike price, which is your payoff for a put option, doesn't earn interest. Another way to look at this is that an option is composed of two elements: The \"\"insurance\"\" element and the time value of the option. The insurance element is what you pay in order to have the option to buy a stock at a certain price. For put options, it is equals to the payout= max(K-S, 0) where K=Strike Price and St= Stock price. The time value of the option can be thought of as a risk-premium. It's difference between the value of the option and the insurance element. If the benefits of exercising a put option early (i.e- earning the risk free rate on the proceeds) outweighs the time value of the put option, it should be exercised early. Yet another way to look at this is by looking at the upper bounds of put options. For a european put, today's value of the option can never be worth more than the present value of the strike price discounted at the risk-free rate. If this rule isn't respected, there would be an arbitrage opportunity by simply investing at the risk-free rate. For an american put, since it can be exercised at any time, the maximum value it can take today is simply equals to the strike price. Therefore, since the PV of the strike price is smaller than the strike price, the american put can have a bigger value. Bear in mind this is for a non-dividend paying stock. As previously mentioned, if a stock pays a dividend it might also be optimal to exercise just before these are paid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8632d5c116e5d8e4cc5025c9fc91759e", "text": "As yet another explanation of why it does not really matter, you can look at this from the valuation point of view. Stock price is the present value of its future cash flows (be it free cash flow of the firm or dividends, depending on the model). Let's have a look at the dividends case. Imagine, the price of the stock is based on only three dividends streams $5 dollars each: dividend to be paid today, in year 1, and in year 2. Each should be discounted back to today (say, at 10%), except today's dividend, since today is now. Once that dividend is paid, it is no longer in the stream of cash flows. So if we just delete that first $5 from the formula, the price will adjust itself down by the amount of the dividend to $8.68. NOTE that this is a very simple example, since in reality cash flows streams are arguably infinite and because there are many other factors affecting stock price. But simply for your understanding, this example should provide you with the reason simply from the valuation perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "125a9ab8de71b8bf45380ba62549f6ef", "text": "A company's stock value is indicative of the market's collective belief of the future of the company. The relationship of between price and book value will vary according to the quality of the company, the category of stock, etc. In extreme cases, say Bank of America, the stock trades at a fraction of book, because BOA's books are a fantasy by most people's reckoning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe185e1d074f6ebf2fe638058bf87b2", "text": "Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344", "text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "da786484da35c61111564223a3e58038", "text": "Because large stores do not pay their cashiers enough that the companies can dock the employees' pay if they allow a bad credit card to go through. So most cashiers at large stores won't take the extra effort to check the card properly. As a result, large stores come up with other ways to handle potential credit card fraud. For example, they calculate a certain amount of fraud as expected and include it in their price calculations. Or they can use cameras to catch fraudsters. At small stores, there is a much higher chance that the cashier is either the owner or a relative of the owner. And even those who are unrelated tend to be hired by the owner directly. The owners do have their pay docked if a bad credit card is accepted, as their pay is the profit from the business. So they tend to create protocols that, at least in their mind, reduce the chance of taking a bad credit card. The cashier is often the only employee in the store to check anything. Another issue is that small stores have a harder time getting approved to accept credit cards. The companies that process the credit cards can take back their machine if there is a lot of fraud. So the companies can require more from small stores than they can from big stores. Those companies can't stop processing cards for Safeway, because they need Safeway as much if not more than Safeway needs them. So the processors have more leverage to make small stores do what they want. And small stores can feasibly fire (non-owner) cashiers who do not comply. Owners of course can't be fired. But they are far more vulnerable to business losses. So it is really important to an owner to keep the credit card machine. And it is pretty important to avoid losses, as it is their money directly. Relatives of owners may be safe from firing, but they are not safe from family retaliation like taking away television privileges. And they may also think of the effect of business losses on the family. Large stores can fire cashiers, but they are chronically understaffed and almost none of their cashiers will consistently follow a strict protocol. Since fraudsters only need to succeed once, an inconsistent application is almost as bad as no application. They might charge the cashiers for fraud, but then they would have to pay the cashiers more than minimum wage specifically for that reason (e.g. a $50 a month bonus for no fraud). For many of them, it's cheaper to risk the fraud. And large stores can't mix owners and relatives of owners into the mix. It's hard to say who owns Safeway. And even if you could, the relationship between one fraud transaction and the dividend paid on one share of stock is tiny. It would take thousands of shares to get up to a penny.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91d1802b16c0cb4b7467d2137e0e4800", "text": "Probably because large chains can absorb the loss from fraud better than small stores do. Thus, small stores want to ensure that the person holding the card is the same as the name on the card.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fe200868faf55dc6ca45e31c8426e5a3", "text": "Competition, or actually lack of competition, mostly due to a demand curve that has minimal change due to price. You would buy the equivalent, cheaper option if it was available, but the store has little interest in offering multiple, competing options that would drive their same store revenue down. And the competing stores (Grocery, Department, Drug, Card) have similar overhead costs (floor space, lights, personnel). Most carry the cards for incremental revenue, and observe little advantage to lower price for a card (customers seldom buy more cards due to a lower price). Thus they mark the price to what (most) customers are willing to pay. You may choose to shop the various stores and find the one that has a (slightly) better pricing for cards, and then stop at that store when you want to buy a card. But many cards are sold as an incremental purchase as part of a larger shopping trip (convenience), as the customer combines trips (reduce the time spent shopping, albeit not reducing the money spent).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8ece65eb6ec4ccdf42ad3ecc6bfaf9a", "text": "Merchants are only supposed to verify the presence of a signature, which signifies that the card owner has accepted the terms and conditions of the card / account. It was never really intended to be used to authenticate the card holder, nor is it used as such in practice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f47a81ac4e95a651ae91ff4749699af", "text": "\"As others have stated, credit (signature required) is processed through their respective networks (Visa, MasterCard, Discover, or American Express). A \"\"debit\"\" card tied to your checking account, still go through the same credit network even though the funds are guaranteed from your checking rather than a free loan 30-60 days which has the potential to be unpaid. This type of debit card purchase may be eligible for a lower processing rate for less risk. Debit cards can also be processed through the debit network (PIN required, no signature). This is typically a straight fee such as $0.35. Fees vary, but let me give you a simple comparison: Say you are at the supermarket and buy $50 worth of groceries with a debit card with Visa logo. You are asked \"\"credit\"\" or \"\"debit\"\": At my supermarket, this is why I am given the option to enter my PIN first. If I want to pay by credit, I have to tap Cancel to process via credit signature.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123c5d8da7e052d5b03841cd5706169a", "text": "Cash-back also lets the store turn hard currency into an electronic transfer or check, which reduces the hassle/risk of hauling bagfulls of cash to the bank. (The smaller stores I've spoken to have called this out as a major advantage of plastic over either cash or checks. I'm assuming that the problem scales with number and size of transactions.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85667121b3846596f582b1f99bfb2b23", "text": "\"At least in the US, one reason could be the \"\"liability shift\"\" that encourages adoption of chipped and contactless cards by shifting the fraud liability to the party that caused the transaction to not use chip-and-PIN / contactless payment: either the merchant (by not having a new compatible terminal) or the card issuer (by not providing the customer with a compatible card). This means the issuers will try to replace old, magnetic-only cards as soon as possible once adoption of the liability shift is certain. http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/bulletin-us-participation-liability-shift-080911.pdf\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18beb46cb0338a631f4fa4b4b77fcea", "text": "My understanding it that the signature requirement is at the retailer's discretion. If the merchant decides to require a signature it protects them against fraudulent charge-back claims, but increases their administrative costs. In some situations it just isn't practical for a retailer to require a signature. Consider for example mail-order or online purchases, which I've never had to sign a credit card slip for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ad235adbc365a7f267a915eb6b63ab2", "text": "Per their merchant agreements, Visa and MasterCard say that the signature on the back of the card is the proper way to identify the card holder. If a card is not signed, the merchant is supposed to check your ID and make you sign the card before accepting it for payment. Merchants are not allowed the require an ID for paying with a signed card. Of course, store employees rarely know all these things. Some will gladly accept an unsigned card. Some will try to make you show your ID.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f5448df867f20d94ca3c0328499f8d2", "text": "In the United States there are 3 main types of cards. There are organizations that push a credit card with their branding. They aren't a bank so they partner with a bank to offer the card. In the US many colleges and professional sports teams will market a credit card with the team or universities colors and logo. The bank handles the details and the team/university gets a flat fee or a portion of the fees. Many even have annual fees. They market to people who want to show their favorite team colors on their credit card, and are willing to pay extra. Some of these branded cards do come with extra perks: Free shipping, discounts on tickets, being able to buy tickets earlier. There are 4 other types of cards that have limited usage: What makes it confusing is that large business can actually turn a portion of the corporation into a bank. Walmart has been doing this, and so have casinos.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56e3871e37ab13e6f1243588f2f7f8be", "text": "Back when they started, Discover undercut Visa and Amex fees by about a point. This was also true when I worked for a mail-order computer retailer in the '90s: if a customer asked us which credit cards we took, we were told to list Discover first (and AmEx last) because Discover had the lowest merchant charges. Possibly this is no longer true today, but for quite a while it was a significant selling point of the Discover card to merchants, and a reason why many did sign on. (A reason some stores did not sign on was that Discover was owned by Sears, and many businesses that competed with Sears didn't like the idea of sending any of their profits to the competition.) Today, Discover also owns Diners Club and the fees for those cards are higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afad993777d3ac29eaac2caca85e5dbc", "text": "The funny thing is that mom &amp; pop type establishments usually prefer cash due to the merchant charges they have to pay to the credit card companies. Some of these are percentage-based &amp; others are fixed like a per-transaction charge. In the long run, accepting 10k USD wouldn't be enough. They would lose more than that in people who don't have a card on them vs accepting both cash and cards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58798764a5f701a63768787f72841c06", "text": "Chip and Pin cards are popular in Europe, however in the US we don't have them. Visa/MC and Amex can issue chip and pin cards but no merchants or machines are set up here to take them. Only certain countries in Europe use them and since you could possibly have a US visitor or a non-chip and pin person using your machine or eating at your restaurant they usually allow you to sign or just omit the pin if the card doesn't have a chip. It is definitely less secure, but the entire credit card industry in the US is running right now without it, so I don't think the major credit card companies care too much (they just pass the fraud on to the merchants anyway).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd86c575bf2a438ab2443e2b0eaf8ea1", "text": "So my wife was at work today and got yelled at by both a cop and her managers for simply LOOKING at the card. I don't understand I also work in retail and of course I must see the card to ensure it is a real card, it is a very strict policy that we must have a valid physical card to run any credit/debit transactions. People put skimmers everywhere you use your card and can pick up the info off the strip and put it onto another card and use it without you noticing right away. With the right equipment they can put their name on it or the name on their fake I.d. so the only red flag would be them trying to use several different cards", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc736a0253f9ea442158e48f5bc98ccb", "text": "\"I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked \"\"Run Your Business\"\" in the top nav, then \"\"Accept Visa Payments\"\". This page has a \"\"More benefits of accepting Visa\"\" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015 That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f05c59befb3907f059b801dc96e45b", "text": "I'm surprised by all the pro-credit answers here, debit has some definite advantages. Most importantly, when you pay with a credit card, the merchant pays around 3% of the transaction to the credit company. In many states, they are forced to charge you the same amount, and this is frequently toted as ''consumer protection''. But consider what this means for the business: they loose money for every credit transaction, and they're legally forbidden to do anything about it. So you're taking 3% from a business and handing it over to a massive cooperation. To make matters worse, the buisness is inevitably going to have to raise their prices (albiet by a small amount), so in the end the average consumer has gained nothing. On the other hand, the credit card company wins big, and they use their profits to pay lobbyists and lawyers to keep these rules in place. To put in the worst possible light, it's essentially legal extortion, verging on corruption. As for the fraud protection offered, while it may be true that credit cards will offer a more hassle-free reimbursement (i.e. you just don't have to pay the bill) if your card is stolen, consumer protection laws also extend to debit: in many cases your bank is legally required to cut you a check for all the money you lost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2b90d6c9662e5c131d48ac4f2501de", "text": "\"For the first part of your question; Refer to related question Why do some online stores not ask for the 3-digit code on the back of my credit card? The other case of Airport ticket machines, requires the physical presence of card. The assumption is that if you had the card before and after the transaction, it was you who used it for transaction. As the amounts are small its really easy by anyone [merchant, Banks] to write this off. The only way to misuse would be if you lost the card and someone used it. Also these ticket machines would have built in feature where by you cannot buy more than \"\"X\"\" tickets for the day. Ensuring max loss on a stolen card is limited to a small amount.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2eb5c9d745da2fe15810ffd0b2fd4451", "text": "Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "82e1f714bcf875df2343789d9907506a", "text": "\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fca1facc06f3225c3ebc700424e3432", "text": "Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway). Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production. Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it. Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself. Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5833ec8d238cc8454f640e2e7dadd266", "text": "It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6bf11b0627d73cbea9659cfedae9210", "text": "\"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68137f0a658c2a2bc73b6b31ad72c235", "text": "\"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead7c9267f9e549354648cf5ca4cd186", "text": "\"I though that only some hedge funds operated that way and others were specific vehicles to provide an efficient hedge? This one is described as \"\"betting against chipmakers\"\" and is blaming a substantial loss against one market, so it can't be doing a great job of hedging itself. Though I think we're saying the same thing and just have a different view of the common meaning of \"\"hedge fund\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "324191f8734b2c593a33362ee537213c", "text": "Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180d2a7f0af42c2226913663d438e41b", "text": "\"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b354cfcaa22f3ae30140295627b99872", "text": "The point of derivatives is to get rid of the risk you don't want so you can acquire exposure only to the risk you want. Who wants weather/temperature risk -- speculators. Who doesn't want that risk? Anyone who's core business is adversely affected by bad weather. It's the same reason multinational firms will hedge FX and interest rates. All a speculator is typically doing is taking the other side of the trade based on what they feel is the true price of the risk they are assuming", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c50fce96405fbc6f0b3daae6b415a7e8", "text": "Delta hedging is not the same as being delta neutral, what you just described is being delta neutral. There exist reasons for a retail trader to be conscious of delta when choosing an option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4cbddfaee0024ce7a0ec84c4ca73a32", "text": "You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2cd1d374057742a8282ff21ffba93e", "text": "I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price. Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it. Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk. If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators. Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26ceaf89f25dc15d761e3c7c15c56718", "text": "\"The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments. The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio. If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the \"\"hedged\"\" ETF is less risky than the \"\"unhedged\"\" version. On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. \"\"Hedging\"\" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio. In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF. It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70", "text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97ba7c78d9da95d26c6773d89ff25ec3", "text": "\"It's interesting that you use so many different risk measures. Here's what I'd like to know more in detail: 1) About the use of VaR. I've heard (from a friend, may be unreliable) that some investment managers like Neuberger Berman doesn't use VaR for assessing risk and maintaining capital adequacy requirements. Rather, some firms only rely on tracking error, beta, standard deviation, etc. Why do you think is this so? Isn't VaR supposed to be a widely accepted risk measure. 2) The whole \"\"Expected Shortfall vs. VaR\"\" debate. I've read some papers comparing Expected Shortfall and VaR. Mainly, they criticize VaR for not being able to consider the 1% probability left where losses can (probably) skyrocket to infinity. If I need to choose between the two, which do you think is better and why?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1a5e0d894cd75c85c0f41c7ac82bcbcb", "text": "\"Get some professional accounting help. You're going to have to pay for everything out of the fee you charge: taxes, retirement, health care, etc. You'll be required to pay quarterly. I don't think you should base your fee on what \"\"this\"\" company will pay as a full-time employee, but what you can expect in your area. They're saving a lot of money not going through an established employment firm and essentially, making you create your own. There are costs to setting up and maintaining a company. They have less risk hiring you because there are no unemployment consequences for letting you go. Once you're hired, they'll probably put you on salary, so you can forget about making more money if you work over 40 hrs. IMHO - there have to be better jobs in your area than this one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f8fdfaf770de8745e3b0fcaa705afcc", "text": "\"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20fe4193f69866d2bb46f62637b0ded", "text": "\"Here's an alternative. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of contract engineering firms (\"\"job shops\"\") in the United States, probably hundreds in California alone. They are in the business of doing what your \"\"employer\"\" wants you to do, they know how to do it, they have been doing it for decades, working with the biggest, most-established companies in the country. They have forgotten more about providing engineering services to clients, and paying the engineers, than you can learn in a lifetime. Call a few of them. Set up meetings. Budget a few hours for it. You want to talk with the most experienced recruiter in the office, the Old Guy Who Has Been There And Done That. Explain your situation, and tell them that, rather than go through all of the headaches yourself, you want to investigate the possibility of THEM handling all the headaches, for their usual markup of course. (You can probably word this better than I can, but you get the idea.) The shop may or may not be willing to talk about their markup. My personal opinion is that this is perfectly OK. What they make off of you, after your rate is paid, is THEIR business. Also, talk about what you do, and your recommended rate. It would not surprise me to learn that you are currently grossly underpaid. AND, mention that, if the client declines, you're going to be available immediately, and you'd certainly be open to working with them. (You will see this again.) In fact, if they have any current leads that you fit, you would certainly be interested in hearing about them. (They may already have a req from another client, for which you fit, for which the client is willing to pay much more than your current \"\"employer\"\".) If it were me, personally, I'd start with Yoh, Belcan, and maybe TAD Technical. These are three of the oldest and best. I'd also hit up CE Weekly, get a subscription, and find some other shops with offices in your area. Once you have a shop lined up, then ask your \"\"employer\"\" if, rather than you setting up a personal corporation, they'd be willing to work with an established Contract Engineering firm, who does this kind of thing for a living, who does this every day, who has been doing this for decades. Doing this is simpler for everyone, and, by going through an established firm, they avoid having to teach you how to do business with them. They also avoid the risk of having you reclassified by IRS as an employee, which exposes them to all kinds of legal and financial liability. If they say \"\"No\"\", WALK AWAY FROM THEM. Immediately. They've just thrown up a HUGE red flag. This is where the other discussions with the shop come into play.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a4130786450c04ffd206a2b40e28ac2", "text": "If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits. If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f913ab28f450bbe86724d87da09fac1", "text": "I would not assume they would pay for any benefits. You will be responsible for paying entirely for health insurance and social security and Medicare. This move is most likely not in your best interests. At a minimum, I would charge double your current hourly rate and would charge for all hours worked including time and half for overtime. 3 times is actually probably a better choice if you want to cover holidays (which they will not pay you for), vacation time, etc. I know when I did project bids, we always priced at 2-3 times the salary we paid the employees.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "babcb6f6ad6c8b258cfec94ff4f3e897", "text": "I believe temp agencies get a payout if the employer decides to hire on the temp full time usually. So it would be to prevent a temp from quitting and going to work for the employer as a way around that payment. The idea is to set a term long enough not to make it worthwhile for the employer to wait rather than paying the fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d938cfa19603cd76c60ccc1bc2fa74d2", "text": "I was looking for ideas on what the usual figures are in such positions. Something like market value, or other terms such as changing slab percentages in compensation. Not sure what the best practices are in this situation. Not sure what you are referring to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "908ab82153e1d1a47409f81c431298ca", "text": "\"When you pay the flight, hotel, conference attendance fees of $100: When you repay the credit card debt of $100: When you receive the gross salary of $5000: Your final balance sheet will show: Your final income statement will show: Under this method, your \"\"Salary\"\" account will show the salary net of business expense. The drawback is that the $4900 does not agree with your official documentation. For tax reporting purposes, you report $5000 to the tax agency, and if possible, report the $100 as Unreimbursed Employee Expenses (you weren't officially reimbursed). For more details see IRS Publication 529.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b526fac64b86f0d375209d228854e1b", "text": "I use paycheckcity.com and first punch in my paycheck and make sure it calculates within a few pennies the value of my actual paycheck. Then I fiddle with withholding values, etc. to see the effect of change. It has been very effective for me over the years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce", "text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4217855657af5723dd47f882f3a402fb", "text": "\"There is not one right way. It depends on the level of detail that you need. One way would be: Create the following accounts: When you pay the phone bill: When you are paid with the reimbursement: That is, when you pay the phone bill, you must debit BOTH phone expense to record the expense, and also reimbursements due to record the fact that someone now owes you money. If it's useful you could add another layer of complexity: When you receive the bill you have a liability, and when you pay it you discharge that liability. Whether that's worth keeping track of depends. I never do for month-to-month bills. Afterthought: I see another poster says that your method is incorrect because a reimbursement is not salary. Technically true, though that problem could be fixed by renaming the account to something like \"\"income from employer\"\". The more serious problem I see is that you are reversing the phone expense when you are reimbursed. So at the end of the year you will show total phone expense as $0. This is clearly not correct -- you did have phone expenses, they were just reimbursed. You really are treating the expense account as an asset account -- \"\"phone expenses due to be reimbursed by employer\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d7833f48df0b9d829546e90aeb990ef", "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!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a4a030d22b00725bc7d80f94e016cc4", "text": "If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9a6590bf53c92059a963492127c1c9c", "text": "DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT DO THAT!!! What could happen if you lie is that they ask for pay stubs before you get an offer letter. If you don't have paystubs to back up what you claim to of made you have likely just lost your job. If they keep you anyway they will be watching you like a hawk because you have proven on the front end that you can't be trusted. I just went through this very same thing a few months ago and here is how I handled it. These numbers are made up so not to reveal my real salary, of course. I was making $2/hr and underpaid at my then company and wanted to make $10 from the new guys. I knew they wouldn't pay me $10 so I was hoping to make $6. They also wouldn't pay me $6 put they offered me $5. $5 was $3 more than I was making before so I gladly took it. I have a salary I can live with for a few years and I'm in a position to grow with the new company. Be honest and negotiate. Be prepared to explain why you think you are worth the money you say you are. Be reasonable about the situation and don't get greedy. You are doing good by them showing interest in retaining you in the first place. Play your cards correctly and professionally and you will do well. Whatever you do don't lie about anything. Good luck!!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a67170ffc59dbf2ae2485ac4f2bd9", "text": "I do something pretty simple when figuring 1099 income. I keep track of my income and deductible expenses on a spreadsheet. Then I do total income - total expenses * .25. I keep that amount in a savings account ready to pay taxes. Given that your estimates for the quarterly payments are low then expected, that amount should be more then enough to fully fund those payments. If you are correct, and they are low, then really what does it matter? You will have the money, in the bank, to pay what you actually owe to the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce5d619eaed53c079cb9c16c785f478a", "text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) * D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2957071718c3125aae989498d051224", "text": "I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3721ceb348cba68d223b26b4009fbc58", "text": "One way to determine compensation is as a percentage per actual hour billed (and paid by client). Very common place to start is 33% for company overhead/administration (insurance, taxes, office expense, etc), 33% for sales commission/costs (roughly half as direct sales commission, half for marketing), 33% as gross 1099 pay compensation to the employee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908", "text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd85b373ebfb5d77342806f310579e72", "text": "Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5595e91386763854de16756fc9b2988a", "text": "\"IF the price of the property (1) increases A LOT, you will just break even, on the huge expenses of home owning. IF the price of the property (2) increases A HUGE AMOUNT, you will make lots of money, due to the leverage. IF the price of the property (3) stays even, you will LOSE a tremendous amount of money. It's much like owning a car - constant expenses. That's all there is to it. It's well worth bearing in mind that property prices for your area / your property need to be constantly increasing for you to merely break even. Note that over long periods of time prices tend to go up (most anywhere - but not everywhere). Many people basically base their thinking on that. It will be OK \"\"in the long run\"\". Which is fair enough. I believe one huge factor is that it is enforced saving. That is the number one advantage for most. Note too that in most/all jurisdictions, there are tremendous tax advantages, even if it turns out to be situation (1) (i.e. a waste of time, you only break-even). Note finally that there are, indeed, tremendous social/financial advantages to having the equity: it gets incredibly easy to get other loans (for business or the like) once you own a house; this is undeniably an advantage (perhaps press your husband on that one).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86ef55767b666f53554d2287dd693f59", "text": "Once you paid it off, you don't pay rent anymore. That is the major advantage. Also, you can do any change you want to it. Many people consider it an investment - if you ever sell it, it could be worth more than what you paid (although this is not for sure)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97fd99a51984de3474ad8e5da3acae09", "text": "Buying a house may save you money compared with renting, depending on the area and specifics of the transaction (including the purchase price, interest rates, comparable rent, etc.). In addition, buying a house may provide you with intangibles that fit your lifestyle goals (permanence in a community, ability to renovate, pride of ownership, etc.). These factors have been discussed in other answers here and in other questions. However there is one other way I think potential home buyers should consider the financial impact of home ownership: Buying a house provides you with a natural 'hedge' against possible future changes in your cost of living. Assume the following: If these two items are true, then buying a home allows you to guarantee today that your monthly living expenses will be mostly* fixed, as long as you live in that community. In 2 years, if there is an explosion of new residents in your community and housing costs skyrocket - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment [or if you paid cash, the lack of mortgage payment] is fixed. In 3 years, if there are 20 new apartment buildings built beside you and housing costs plummet - doesn't affect you, your mortgage payment is fixed. If you know that you want to live in a particular place 20 years from now, then buying a house in that area today may be a way of ensuring that you can afford to live there in the future. *Remember that while your mortgage payment will be fixed, other costs of home ownership will be variable. See below. You may or may not save money compared with rent over the period you live in your house, but by putting your money into a house, you have protected yourself against catastrophic rent increases. What is the cost of hedging yourself against this risk? (A) The known costs of ownership [closing costs on purchase, mortgage interest, property tax, condo fees, home insurance, etc.]; (B) The unknown costs of ownership [annual and periodic maintenance, closing costs on a future sale, etc.]; (C) The potential earnings lost on your down payment / mortgage principal payments [whether it is low-risk interest or higher risk equity]; (D) You may have reduced savings for a long period of time which would limit your ability to cover emergencies (such as medical costs, unexpected unemployment, etc.) (E) You may have a reduced ability to look for a better job based on being locked into a particular location (though I have assumed above that you want to live in a particular community for an extended period of time, that desire may change); and (F) You can't reap the benefits of a rental market that decreases in real dollars, if that happens in your market over time. In short, purchasing a home should be a lifestyle-motivated decision. It financially reduces some the fluctuation in your long-term living costs, with the trade-off of committed principal dollars and additional ownership risks including limited mobility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c68bac31fe0a96599eb89f3e57336b", "text": "\"The New York Times offer a remarkably detailed Buy vs Rent calculator. You enter - From all of this, it advises the break-even rent, when monetarily, it's equal. I'd suggest you keep a few things in mind when using such a tool. Logic, common sense, and a Nobel prize winner named Robert Shiller all indicate that housing will follow inflation over the long term. Short term, even 20 years, the graphs will hint at something else, but the real long term, the cost of housing can't exceed inflation. The other major point I'd add is that I see you wrote \"\"We rent a nice house.\"\" Most often, people are looking to buy what they feel they can't easily rent. Whether it's the yard, room number or sizes, etc. This also leads to the purchase of too big a house. You can find that you can afford the extra bedroom, family room in addition to living room, etc, and then buy a house 50% bigger than what you need or planned on. In my opinion, getting the smallest house you can imagine living in, no bigger than what you live in now, and plan to get on a faster than 30 year repayment. Even with transaction costs, in 10 years, you'll have saved enough to make the bump up to a larger house if you wish.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a33d982f23e79ac83614f74dd4c8f6a", "text": "\"A home actually IS a terrible investment. It has all the traits of something you would NEVER want to plunge your hard-earned money into. The only way that buying a house makes good money sense is if you pay cash for it and get a really good deal. It should also be a house you can see yourself keeping for decades or until you're older and want something easier to take care of. Of course, nothing can replace \"\"sense of ownership\"\" or \"\"sense of pride\"\" other than owning a house. And your local realtor is banking (really, laughing all the way to the bank) on your emotions overcoming your smart money savvy. This post really goes to work listing all the reasons why a house is a horrible investment. Should be required reading for everyone about to buy a house. Why your house is a terrible investment - jlcollinsnh.com TLDR; - You must decide what is more important, the money or the feelings. But you can't have both. If you read the article linked and still want to buy a house...then you probably should.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dea708a4a3ed2acf96b85950993dd8b2", "text": "\"It certainly seems like you are focusing on the emotional factors. That's your blind spot, and it's the surest path to a situation where your husband gets to say \"\"I told you so\"\". I recommend you steer straight into that blind spot, and focus your studies on the business aspects of buying and owning homes. You should be able to do spreadsheets 6 ways from Sunday, be able to recite every tax deduction you'll get as a homeowner, know the resale impacts of 1 bathroom vs 2, tell a dirty house from a broken house, etc. Everybody's got their favorites, mine are a bit dated but I like Robert Irwin and Robert Allen's books. For instance: a philosophy of Allen's that I really like: never sell. This avoids several problems, like the considerable costs of money, time and nerves of actually selling a house, stress about house prices, mistaking your house's equity for an ATM machine, and byzantine rules for capital gains tax mainly if you rent out the house, which vary dramatically by nation. In fact the whole area of taxes needs careful study. There's another side to the business of home ownership, and that's renting to others. There's a whole set of economics there - and that is a factor in what you buy. Now AirBNB adds a new wrinkle because there's some real money there. Come to understand that market well enough to gauge whether a duplex or triplex will be a money maker. Many regular folk like you have retired early and live off the rental income from their properties. JoeTaxpayer has an interesting way of looking at the finances of housing: if a house doesn't make sense as a a rental unit, maybe it doesn't make sense as a live-in either. So learn how to identify those fundamentals - the numbers. And get in the habit of evaluating houses. Work it regularly until it's second nature. Then, yes, you'll see houses you fall in love with, partly because the numbers work. It also helps to be handy. It really, really changes the economics if you can do your own quality work, because you don't need to spend any money on labor to convert a dirty house into a clean house. And lots of people do, and there's a whole SE just for that. There is a huge difference between going down to the local building supply and getting the water pipe you need, vs. having to call a plumber. And please deal with local businesses, please don't go to the Big Box stores, their service is abominable, they will cheerfully sell you a gadget salad of junk that doesn't work together, and I can't imagine a colder and less inviting scene to come up as a handy person.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f30788f8fb761d716f81b5eca3e2ce50", "text": "\"This might be a good idea, depending on your personality and inclinations. Key points: How close is the building to you? Do not buy any building that is more than 20 minutes travel from where you are. Do you have any real hard experience with doing construction, building maintenance and repair? Do you have tools? Example: do you have a reciprocating saw? do you know what a reciprocating saw is? If your answer to both those questions is \"\"no\"\", think twice about acquiring a property that involves renovation. Renovation costs can be crushing, especially for someone who is not an experienced carpenter and electrician. Take your estimates of costs and quadruple them. Can you still afford it? Do you want to be a landlord? Being a landlord is a job. You will be called in the middle of the night by tenants who want their toilet to get fixed and stuff like that. Is that what you want to spend your time doing, driving 20 minutes to change lightbulbs and fix toilets?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c4bc25e5ecf9f7dd4e2a49e2fe716ba", "text": "\"To add to what other have stated, I recently just decided to purchase a home over renting some more, and I'll throw in some of my thoughts about my decision to buy. I closed a couple of weeks ago. Note that I live in Texas, and that I'm not knowledgeable in real estate other than what I learned from my experiences in the area when I am located. It depends on the market and location. You have to compare what renting will get you for the money vs what buying will get you. For me, buying seemed like a better deal overall when just comparing monthly payments. This is including insurance and taxes. You will need to stay at a house that you buy for at least 5-7 years. You first couple years of payments will go almost entirely towards interest. It takes a while to build up equity. If you can pay more towards a mortgage, do it. You need to have money in the bank already to close. The minimum down payment (at least in my area) is 3.5% for an FHA loan. If you put 20% down, you don't need to pay mortgage insurance, which is essentially throwing money away. You will also have add in closing costs. I ended up purchasing a new construction. My monthly payment went up from $1200 to $1600 (after taxes, insurance, etc.), but the house is bigger, newer, more energy efficient, much closer to my work, in a more expensive area, and in a market that is expected to go up in value. I had all of my closing costs (except for the deposit) taken care of by the lender and builder, so all of my closing costs I paid out of pocket went to the deposit (equity, or the \"\"bank\"\"). If I decide to move and need to sell, then I will get a lot (losing some to selling costs and interest) of the money I have put in to the house back out of it when I do sell, and I have the option to put that money towards another house. To sum it all up, I'm not paying a difference in monthly costs because I bought a house. I had my closing costs taking care of and just had to pay the deposit, which goes to equity. I will have to do maintenance myself, but I don't mind fixing what I can fix, and I have a builder's warranties on most things in the house. To really get a good idea of whether you should rent or buy, you need to talk to a Realtor and compare actual costs. It will be more expensive in the short term, but should save you money in the long term.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c074e41e3cb931ec2dfbfc915fdbe0e", "text": "\"The logic \"\"the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy\"\" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6bafc178dad29c3bf694d00227deaf5", "text": "\"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8235e95dbdf4a3ee49fa95b34de43948", "text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a59570049a42e56497a59511e25abb8e", "text": "I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment. This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even. Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e058a9c9c6fcfe1a68a04d3b3487bba3", "text": "\"All other factors being equal, owning your primary residence is almost always a good investment over the long haul. Why? Because you have to live somewhere, and rentals, especially long-term leases that are important when you have kids in school, etc., are generally in the same ballpark as a mortgage in most markets. Giving $1,500 to a landlord gets me 30 days of living somewhere. Giving $1,500 to the bank gets me a place to live and equity in an asset which requires maintenance, but always has intrinsic value. Detroit is one extreme, Manhattan or Silicon Valley is another real estate extreme... everywhere else is somewhere in the middle. What isn't always a good investment is speculating in highly elastic \"\"investment property\"\" like vacation condos as an amateur. It's a cyclical market, but our attention spans are too short to realize that. As most of the other answers to this question indicate, people tend to be down in the dumps and see all of the problems with real estate when the market is not very good. Conversely people only see the upside and are oblivious to problems when the market is high.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e8cd130942cc8542e6028780b22781a", "text": "There are thousands of dealers in the real estate market which claims to provide you the best homes at lowest price but before investing such a huge amount in property, one should take decision wisely. As investing in your home is a life time investment and it must be cost effective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6194e70294709a000a67a8082c3515f1", "text": "\"I think anyone who is seriously contemplating a real estate purchase needs to sit down and read some history -- in particular the accounts of the 1930's and what happened to people who jumped into real estate in the midst of the depression. If you're not aware: by and large, what happened is they lost their asses: the property continues to fall in value, and then they're on the hooked for increasing taxes as local and state governments raise taxes in a desperate attempt to plug budget holes. And, of course, interest rates are headed nowhere but up. That will inversely impact your home's value, given that most people buy homes exactly like you're thinking about them: not how much the home is worth, but rather how much payment can you afford (as rates go up, you can afford less). A contemporary piece which has lots of accounts of this over multiple years is [The Great Depression - A Diary](http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Depression-A-Diary/dp/1586489011). IMHO real estate is to be avoided until well after a bottom has been reached, and that's IMHO still some years away. Someone coming out of college now should ferret away as much money as possible, live as cheaply as possible, and stay far, far away from thoughts of \"\"gee, it sure would be a good idea to go drop half a million dollars on a house when I'm making $70K.\"\" While you're predicting raises and employment, neither is safe to take for granted. Indeed, many folks thought that in the late 00's and got absolutely destroyed financially as a result.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5df8a849a52d5c0667cc5f525bd7ab6", "text": "The rent versus buy question is a deeply personal one in which your personal desires for a living space need to be carefully combined with what makes economic sense. Do you want your own place with all the joys of having it be yours and all the pains of having to handle all the maintenance and be the one ultimately responsible? Have you tried living for a few months putting aside the amount required for not only a mortgage payment but the taxes and insurance on a house/condo in your price range to see if you can really afford it? You can use a real estate website such as trulia to see the assessments of some for sale homes and figure out tax values. The average home insurance in the US is around $900/year if I remember right - more for homes that are more expensive and less for less expensive ones, with flooding and other hazards as a factor. Make sure you can afford to pay for all these items. From a financial perspective realize that you'll always be spending money on your living space. Even if you pay for a house with cash you will be paying property tax and maintenance and would be wise to continue paying for insurance. The value of the house at that point is, as contributor fennec often says, the rent you aren't paying. I personally don't recommend trying to time the market. You can't predict the future - will real estate in your area be a double dip or has it bottomed and is it going up? What you can do is buy a home only when you are sure that you can deal with its relative lack of liquidity by staying there for a long time. Five years is usually a reasonable minimum. There is a way that I recommend figuring out if it is likely bad financial decision to buy, and that's by looking at a financial comparison of renting versus buying. In some cases even with the bursting of the bubble it is still a bad deal to buy. DC went from renting being more cost effective to buying, but San Francisco is one area where buying is still not necessarily the best choice. To figure out what the case is for your area, look at the New York Times rent versus buy calculator. Find a home for rent on craigslist similar to what you'd look to buy. Find a home for sale on one of the MLS aggregator sites that represents something you think you'd like. Plug in the numbers. Figure out how many years you'd have to stay in your purchase for it to be a good deal. In the likely event that the calculator says buy, start saving if that's what you really want. You're never going to be able to absolutely guarantee that you won't be upside down. What you can control is getting as much principal in that house as you can. The more you have, the less likely you will be upside down. Build a down payment now, reap the rewards later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db30f9ff88078772375651cf85355306", "text": "House as investment is not a good idea. Besides the obvious calculations don't forget the property tax, home maintenance costs and time, insurance costs, etc. There are a lot of hidden drains on the investment value of the house; most especially the time that you have to invest in maintaining it. On the other hand, if you plan on staying in the area, having children, pets or like do home improvements, landscaping, gardening, auto repair, wood/metal shopping then a house might be useful to you. Also consider the housing market where you are. This gets a bit more difficult to calculate but if you have a high-demand rental market then the house might make sense as an investment if you can rent it out for more than your monthly cost (including all of those factors above). But being a landlord is not for everyone. Again more of your time invested into the house, you have to be prepared to go months without renting it, you may have to deal with crazy people that will totally trash your house and threaten you if you complain, and you may need to part with some of the rent to a management company if you need their skills or time. It sounds like you are just not that interested right now. That's fine. Don't rush. Invest your money some other way (i.e.: the stock market). More than likely when you are ready for a house, or to bail your family out of trouble (if that's what you choose to do), you'll have even more assets to do either with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d", "text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9736dc511d3b562f2279b7227c40a95", "text": "There's probably no simple answer, but it's fair to say there are bad times to buy, and better times. If you look at a house and see the rent is more than the mortgage payment, it may be time to consider buying. Right now, the market is depressed, if you buy and plan to stay put, not caring if it drops from here because you plan to be there for the long term, you may find a great deal to be had. Over the long term, housing matches inflation. Sounds crazy, but. Even into the bubble, if you looked at housing in terms of mortgage payment at the prevailing 30yr fixed rate and converted the payment to hours needed to work to make the payment, the 2005 bubble never was. Not at the median, anyway. At today's <5% rate, the mortgage will cost you 3.75% after taxes. And assuming a 3% long term inflation rate, less than 1%. You have expenses, to be sure, property tax, maintenance, etc, but if you fix the mortgage, inflation will eat away at it, and ultimately it's over. At retirement, I'll take a paid for house over rising rents any day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d352dd687331678cf1e9b26bddfc96b", "text": "\"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a \"\"leveraged investment\"\" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c83387a5c166a0bf0e8c3637a9e7db", "text": "I'll add this to what the other answers said: if you are a renter now, and the real estate you want to buy is a house to live in, then it may be worth it - in a currency devaluation, rent may increase faster than your income. If you pay cash for the home, you also have the added benefit of considerably reducing your monthly housing costs. This makes you more resilient to whatever the future may throw at you - a lower paying job, for instance, or high inflation that eats away at the value of your income. If you get a mortgage, then make sure to get a fixed interest rate. In this case, it protects you somewhat from high inflation because your mortgage payment stays the same, while what you would have had to pay in rent keeps going up an up. In both cases there is also taxes and insurance, of course. And those would go up with inflation. Finally, do make sure to purchase sensibly. A good rule of thumb on how much you can afford to pay for a home is 2.5x - 3.5x your annual income. I do realize that there are some areas where it's common for people to buy homes at a far greater multiple, but that doesn't mean it's a sensible thing to do. Also: I'll second what @sheegaon said; if you're really worried about the euro collapsing, it might give you some peace of mind to move some money into UK Gilts or US Treasuries. Just keep in mind that currencies do move against each other, so you'd see the euro value of those investments fluctuate all the time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bfc6b9e15735ccad53b4a312432b6239", "text": "I strongly recommend that you talk to an accountant right away because you could save some money by making a tax payment by January 15, 2014. You will receive Forms 1099-MISC from the various entities with whom you are doing business as a contractor detailing how much money they paid you. A copy will go to the IRS also. You file a Schedule C with your Form 1040 in which you detail how much you received on the 1099-MISC forms as well as any other income that your contracting business received (e.g. amounts less than $600 for which a 1099-MISc does not need to be issued, or tips, say, if you are a taxi-driver running your own cab), and you can deduct various expenses that you incurred in generating this income, including tools, books, (or gasoline!) etc that you bought for doing the job. You will need to file a Schedule SE that will compute how much you owe in Social Security and Medicare taxes on the net income on Schedule C. You will pay at twice the rate that employees pay because you get to pay not only the employee's share but also the employer's share. At least, you will not have to pay income tax on the employer's share. Your net income on Schedule C will transfer onto Form 1040 where you will compute how much income tax you owe, and then add on the Social Security tax etc to compute a final amount of tax to be paid. You will have to pay a penalty for not making tax payments every quarter during 2013, plus interest on the tax paid late. Send the IRS a check for the total. If you talk to an accountant right away, he/she will likely be able to come up with a rough estimate of what you might owe, and sending in that amount by January 15 will save some money. The accountant can also help you set up for the 2014 tax year during which you could make quarterly payments of estimated tax for 2014 and avoid the penalties and interest referred to above.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b0fe4f46c95a1af4c1c188eddc55166d", "text": "For tax purposes you will need to file as an employee (T4 slips and tax withheld automatically), but also as an entrepreneur. I had the same situation myself last year. Employee and self-employed is a publication from Revenue Canada that will help you. You need to fill out the statement of business activity form and keep detailed records of all your deductible expenses. Make photocopies and keep them 7 years. May I suggest you take an accountant to file your income tax form. More expensive but makes you less susceptible to receive Revenue Canada inspectors for a check-in. If you can read french, you can use this simple spreadsheet for your expenses. Your accountant will be happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe6f7a9cad2f4520ed898b0c39b47ba", "text": "\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56366def285b890e0e187764b2691abf", "text": "\"After doing a little research, I was actually surprised to find many internet resources on this topic (including sites from Intuit) gave entirely incorrect information. The information that follows is quoted directly from IRS Publication 929, rules for dependents First, I will assume that you are not living on your own, and are claimed as a \"\"dependent\"\" on someone else's tax return (such as a parent or guardian). If you were an \"\"emancipated minor\"\", that would be a completely different question and I will ignore this less-common case. So, how much money can you make, as a minor who is someone else's dependent? Well, the most commonly quoted number is $6,300 - but despite this numbers popularity, this is not true. This is how much you can earn in wages from regular employment without filing your own tax return, but this does not apply to your scenario. Selling your products online as an independent game developer would generally be considered self-employment income, and according to the IRS: A dependent must also file a tax return if he or she: Had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified church-controlled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes, or Had net earnings from self-employment of at least $400. So, your first $400 in earnings triggers absolutely no requirement to file a tax return - blast away, and good luck! After that, you do not necessarily owe much in taxes, however you will need to file a tax return even if you owe $0, as this was self-employment income. If you had, for instance, a job at a grocery store, you could earn up to $6,300 without filing a return, because the store would be informing the IRS about your employment anyway - as well as deducting Medicare and Social Security payments, etc. How much tax will you pay as your income grows beyond $400? Based upon the IRS pages for Self-Employment Tax and Family Businesses, while you will not likely have to pay income tax until you make $6,300 in a year, you will still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes after the first $400. Roughly this should be right about 16% of your income, so if you make $6000 you'll owe just under $1000 (and be keeping the other $5000). If your income grows even more, you may want to learn about business expense deductions. This would allow you to pay for things like advertisement, software, a new computer for development purposes, etc, and deduct the expenses out of your income so you pay less in taxes. But don't worry - having such things to wonder about would mean you were raking in thousands of dollars, and that's an awfully good problem to have as a young entrepreneur! So, should you keep your games free or try to make some money? Well, first of all realize that $400 can be a lot harder to make when you are first starting in business than it probably sounds. Second, don't be afraid of making too much money! Tax filing software - even totally free versions - make filing taxes much, much easier, and at your income level you would still be keeping the vast majority of the money you earn even without taking advantage of special business deductions. I'd recommend you not be a afraid of trying to make some money! I'd bet money it will help you learn a lot about game development, business, and finances, and will be a really valuable experience for you - whether you make money or not. Having made so much money you have to pay taxes is not something to be afraid of - it's just something adults like to complain about :) Good luck on your adventures, and you can always come back and ask questions about how to file taxes, what to do with any new found wealth, etc!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d6a6791ce3ec6df6dfd451ae2ffb6d3", "text": "Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee0f34fa27cb4ca84be860d651f060f3", "text": "You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status. Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them. You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return. You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage. The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness. That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37a8df9320affe0b7287c522247d716f", "text": "If you are being paid money in exchange for services that you are providing to your cousin, then that is income, are legally you are required to declare it as self-employment income, and pay taxes when you file your tax return (and if you have a significant amount of self-employment income, you're supposed make payments every quarter of your estimated tax liability. The deposit itself will not be taxed, however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14473f2ac55ef0a59cf823be7856e1de", "text": "You will need to register as self-employed aka sole trader (that's the whole point: pay taxes on income that you're not getting as wages from an employer, who would arrange PAYE/NI contributions), or set up a limited company (in the last case you would have the option of either getting paid as wages or as dividends — which one is better is a complex issue which varies from year to year). You'll find lots of advice on the HMRC website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691ebc769be4882276be7460d9e1cd52", "text": "Checkout the worksheet on page 20 of Pub 535. Also the text starting in the last half of the third column of page 18 onward. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p535.pdf The fact that you get a W-2 is irrelevant as far as I can see. Your self-employment business has to meet some criteria (such as being profitable) and the plan needs to be provided through your own business (although if you're sole proprietor filing on Schedule C, it looks like having it in your own name does the trick). Check the publication for all of the rules. There is this exception that would prevent many people with full-time jobs on W-2 from taking the deduction: Other coverage. You cannot take the deduc­tion for any month you were eligible to partici­pate in any employer (including your spouse's) subsidized health plan at any time during that month, even if you did not actually participate. In addition, if you were eligible for any month or part of a month to participate in any subsidized health plan maintained by the employer of ei­ther your dependent or your child who was un­der age 27 at the end of 2014, do not use amounts paid for coverage for that month to fig­ure the deduction. (Pages 20-21). Sounds like in your case, though, this doesn't apply. (Although your original question doesn't mention a spouse, which might be relevant to the rule if you have one and he/she works.) The publication should help. If still in doubt, you'll probably need a CPA or other professional to assess your individual situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18aa3fdbbe9aca96da6f7a89dc764210", "text": "If you sell through an intermediate who sets up the shop for you, odds are they collect and pay the sales tax for you. My experience is with publishing books through Amazon, where they definitely handle this for you. If you can find a retailer that will handle the tax implications, that might be a good reason to use them. It looks like Etsy uses a different model where you yourself are responsible for the sales tax, which requires you to register with your state (looks like this is the information for New York) and pay the taxes yourself on a regular basis; see this link for a simple guide. If you're doing this, you'll need to keep track of how much tax you owe from your sales each month, quarter, or year (depending on the state laws). You can usually be a sole proprietor, which is the easiest business structure to set up; if you want to limit your legal liability, or work with a partner, you may want to look into other forms of business structure, but for most craftspeople a sole proprietorship is fine to start out with. If you do a sole proprietorship, you can probably file the income on a 1040 Schedule C when you do your personal taxes each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8a34d5de6f3676427fdea0189bc6428", "text": "It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings. The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money. If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd07b9332ec0af4e8cddc1f4c558f5dc", "text": "\"From the IRS page on Estimated Taxes (emphasis added): Taxes must be paid as you earn or receive income during the year, either through withholding or estimated tax payments. If the amount of income tax withheld from your salary or pension is not enough, or if you receive income such as interest, dividends, alimony, self-employment income, capital gains, prizes and awards, you may have to make estimated tax payments. If you are in business for yourself, you generally need to make estimated tax payments. Estimated tax is used to pay not only income tax, but other taxes such as self-employment tax and alternative minimum tax. I think that is crystal clear that you're paying income tax as well as self-employment tax. To expand a bit, you seem to be confusing self-employment tax and estimated tax, which are not only two different things, but two different kinds of things. One is a tax, and the other is just a means of paying your taxes. \"\"Self-employment tax\"\" refers to the Social Security and Medicare taxes that you must pay on your self-employment income. This is an actual tax that you owe. If you receive a W-2, half of it is \"\"invisibly\"\" paid by your employer, and half of it is paid by you in the form of visible deductions on your pay stub. If you're self-employed, you have to pay all of it explicitly. \"\"Estimated tax\"\" does not refer to any actual tax levied on anyone. A more pedantically correct phrasing would be \"\"estimated tax payment\"\". Estimated taxes are just payments that you make to the IRS to pay tax you expect to owe. Whether you have to make such payments depends on how much tax you owe and whether you've paid it by other means. You may need to pay estimated tax even if you're not self-employed, although this would be unusual. (It could happen, for instance, if you realized large capital gains over the year.) You also may be self-employed but not need to pay estimated tax (if, for instance, you also have a W-2 job and you reduce your withholding allowances to have extra tax withheld). That said, if you earn significant income from self-employment, you'll likely have to make estimated tax payments. These are prepayments of the income tax and Social Security/Medicare taxes you accrue based on your self-employment income. As Pete B. mentioned in his answer, a possible reason that your estiamtes are low is because some taxes have already been withheld from the paychecks you received so far during the year (while you were an employee). These represent tax payments you've already made; you don't need to pay that money a second time, but you may need to make estimated tax payments for your income going forward.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f2ff5ed3f7d9d6c17bd7c358111fd09", "text": "The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in. That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040. That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer. Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax. the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes. If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours. meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes. Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined. If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it. It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago. For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "113ceb5d9dd121482e9d9a44002a48f2", "text": "Can I work on 1099 from my own company instead of on W2? The reason is on W2 I can't deduct my commute, Health Insurance and some other expenses while on 1099 I think I can able do that. Since I am going to client place to work not at my own office, I am not sure whether I should able to do that or not. If you have LLC, unless you elected to tax it as a corporation, you need neither 1099 nor W2. For tax purposes the LLC is disregarded. So it is, from tax perspective, a sole proprietorship (or partnership, if multiple members). Being a W2 employee of your own LLC is a bad idea. For all these above expenses, which can I use company's debit/credit card or I need to use only my personal debit/credit card? It would be better to always use a business account for business purposes. Doesn't matter much for tax per se, but will make your life easier in case of an audit or a legal dispute (limited liability protection may depend on it). If I work on 1099, I guess I need to file some reasonable taxes on quarterly basis instead of filing at year end. If so, how do I pay my tax on quarterly basis to IRS? I mean which forms should I file and how to pay tax? Unless you're a W2 employee, you need to do quarterly estimate payments using form 1040-ES. If you are a W2 employee (even for a different job, and even if it is not you, but your spouse with whom you're filing jointly) - you can adjust your/spouse's withholding using form W4 to cover the additional tax liability. This is, IMHO, a better way than paying estimates. There are numerous questions on this, search the site or ask another one for details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0c51eea3ded591cacec119ff328abda", "text": "Payment of taxes for your personal return filed with the IRS always come from your personal account, regardless of how the money was earned. Sales tax would be paid from your business account, so would corporate taxes, if those apply; but if you're talking about your tax payments to the IRS for your personal income that should be paid from your personal account. Also, stating the obvious, if you're paying an accountant to handle things you can always ask them for clarification as well. They will have more precise answers. EDIT Adding on for your last part of the question I missed: In virtually all cases LLC's are what's called a pass through entity. For these entities, all income in the eyes of the federal government passes directly through the entity to the owners at the end of each year. They are then taxed personally on this net income at their individual tax rate, that's the very abridged version at least. The LLC pays no taxes directly to the federal government related to your income. Here's a resource if you'd like to learn more about LLC's: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/llc-basics-30163.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04bbc88a939792d7bc92dd48454f2d87", "text": "\"Paying yourself through a corporation requires an analysis of a variety of issues. First, a salary paid to yourself creates RRSP contribution room as well as CPP contributions. Paying yourself a dividend achieves neither of those. By having a corporation, you will have to file a corporate (T2) tax return. The corporation is considered a separate legal entity from you. As an individual, you will still need to file a personal (T1) tax return. Never just \"\"draw\"\" money out of a corporation. This can create messy transactions involving loans to shareholders. Interest is due on these amounts and any amounts not paid within one calendar year are considered as wages by Canada Revenue and would need to be reported as income on your next T1 return. You should never withhold EI premiums as the sole owner of a corporation. You are considered exempt from these costs by CRA. Any amounts that have been remitted to CRA can be reclaimed by submitting a formal request. The decision on whether to take a salary or dividends normally requires some detailed analysis. Your accountant or financial advisor should be able to assist in this matter.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "231c8283c9656c1c1a24480712f7b79b", "text": "The standard approach is to reach an agreement and put it in writing. What you agree upon is up to you, but in the US if you want to avoid gift taxes larger loans need to be properly documented and must charge at least a certain minimal interest rate. (Or at least you must declare and be taxed upon that minimal income even if you don't actually charge it. Last I looked, the federal requirement was somewhere under 0.3%, so this isn't usually an issue. There may also be state rules.) When doing business with friends, treat it as business first, friendship second. Otherwise you risk losing both money and friendship. Regarding what rate to charge: That is something you two have to negotiate, based on how much the borrower needs the money, how much lending the money puts the lender at risk, how generous each is feeling, etc. Sorry, but there is no one-size-fits-all answer here. What I charge (or insist on paying to) my brother might be different from what I charge my cousin, or a co-worker, or best friend, or... If both parties think it's fair, it's fair. If you can't reach an agreement, of course, the loan doesn't happen.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d8793d06c2f638210aad99902e013eb1", "text": "Banks worry that the large gift might be a loan that is ultimately expected to be repaid. If so, that affects the cash flow of the recipient, and makes it more difficult to make the mortgage payments to the bank. In some cases, of course, it is an informal loan: Dad advances a large $X to son to use as a downpayent, but does not charge interest and the expectation is that the money will be returned in smaller chunks as and when the son can afford to repay Dad. In some cases, Dad truly means it as a gift, but son feels an obligation to repay the money, if not explicitly, then by paying for the first few months of Dad's nursing home stay, etc. So, banks like to have an explicit document such as a copy of a letter from Dad saying that this money is a gift, and some assurance that this is on the up and up. If the amount is larger than the maximum gift that can be given each year without having to file a gift tax return, then some assurance that a gift tax return will be filed is helpful. Mentioning this in the letter is good: it indicates that there are no secret handshakes or secret agreements to the effect that this is in fact a loan, with or without regular repayments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135b37b7948dbd97c8af6da4003abfa7", "text": "In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b54546c7819bdf923482fc996944adb5", "text": "\"Does the money lending between us need to be reported in our tax reports? No. Will he be taxed more because of lending the money to me? Yes. Will I be taxed more because of borrowing the money from him? No. How shall we report it so as to minimize our taxes? You cannot. What is reported on your tax returns is the income. A loan is not an income, so nothing gets reported. However, when you repay the loan, assuming it has interest, the lender has income: the interest. Interest income is reported on schedule B of the regular (1040/1040A) tax return (or, in the case of non-resident for tax purposes, on line 9 of 1040NR). It is taxed as ordinary income, and since you're both foreigners - the lender should look into the treaty provisions that might be relevant. Generally it is not exempt from taxable income based on treaty exemptions for students (which is only for earned income), but there might be other rules in the treaty regarding interest income. If there's no (fair market or higher) interest, then there's \"\"assumed\"\" interest at the IRS mandated rates, which is considered a gift. If it amounts to more than the yearly gift exemption, the lender may be liable for gift tax (depending on the lender's and your status, and again - see treaties). \"\"Loan\"\" without an obligation to repay and without actual repaying will also be considered a gift for tax purposes. If the lender has no intentions of having the loan repaid (i.e.: making a gift), it will be better to pay your tuition bills instead of actually giving you the money: tuition is exempt from gift tax. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state for a proper tax advice on this issue.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073", "text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51", "text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fea990d65f8be890630604a5a90a96da", "text": "JohnFx is more experienced than I am but I have paid off friends cards before. It was as simple as asking them the routing number of the bank that gave them the card and setting up an ACH with their card number. I guess this might be against some banks T&C but the CU I used to carry out the ACH gave me the go ahead as long as I did not dispute the payment later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ea12d08b27c305c365845315d008efb", "text": "This is called a fraudulent conveyance because its purpose is to prevent a creditor from getting repaid. It is subject to claw back under US law, which is a fancy way of saying that your friend will have to pay the bank back. Most jurisdictions have similar laws. It is probably a crime as well, but that varies by jurisdiction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab8e356652d6730d50ad291d5fb51e4c", "text": "The big problem with lending money to friends and family is that if things go sour with the deal than you can lose something a lot more valuable than the money associated with the deal. As a result of that I no longer lend money to friends and family. If I have the extra money available and I know someone is really in need I'll give them the money no strings attached before I'll lend any. If they decide to give back the amount given at some point in the future so be it, but there will be no expectations. Thanksgiving dinner just has a different taste to it when someone at the table owes someone else money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f57a878a88292aa455a9f951063ebb0", "text": "Standard advice for these scenarios: Stay out of it unless asked specifically for advice, and even then, be wary of being too harsh. You'll damage your relationship with your friend if you get involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5620c024950487dff9344ee03c171ec5", "text": "I came across such a situation and I am still facing it. My friend borrowed my credit card for his expenses as he had misplaced his debit card and for the time being had asked for my credit card to handle the expenses he does. He paid for initial 2 months and then was not able to make payments, mainly due to not being able to arrange money or if it was a contri party, he would collect cash from friends but again spend the same. Months passes by... the bill had come upto 65k and calls from bank and other respective organizations Finally my dad came into picture and slowly the issue is resolving he has paid 50K remaining is still pending. So basically, the reason I shared this part of story was he is my Best friend and in order to not spoil our friendship I did not want to take any such step which would later on affect our friendship. This completely depends on the individuals how they react to the situation. Keeping Ego, superiority, favour sort of feelings and words apart things can be resolved between friends. You do not know what is the situation on the other side. Probably you can connect with him ask him to explain you why is not able to pay the debts and take action accordingly. If he is not able to provide a proper reason then you may take some actions like mentioned in initial answers, run after the assets he own or anything else.Stay Calm and patient. Do not take any such step which you would regret later on...!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d", "text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9d1cac00c18cae042e4afd946a53db0", "text": "You should only loan money to friends or relatives if you are fully accepting the possibility of never ever getting that money back. And in this situation it can happen that you will be forced to give him a very large loan if something bad ever happens to him. (Paying the monthly rates instead of him and expecting he will someday pay it back to you is technically the same as loaning him money). Something might happen in the future which will result in him not paying his monthly payments. Maybe not now, but in 5 years. Or 10. The economy might change, he might be out of a job, his personal values might change. A house mortgage is long term, and during that time a lot can happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74b01f700c046fa5658bca7ef5ff164", "text": "Legally, I can't find any reason that the LLC could not lend money to an individual. However, I believe the simplest course of action is to first distribute money from your company to your personal account, and then make it a personal loan. Whether the loan is done through the business or personally, financially I don't think there is much difference as to which bucket the interest income goes into, since your business and personal income will all get lumped together anyway with a single person LLC. Even if your friend defaults on the loan, either the business or you personally will have the same burden of proof to meet that the loan was not a gift to begin with, and if that burden is met, the deduction can be taken from either side. If a debt goes bad the debtor may be required to report the debt as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c06409db3a289957c3d619a503dadff6", "text": "It's been a long time since I've used MS Money and/or Quickbooks (never Quicken), but I've used GnuCash over the past year or so. It works, but it does suffer from some usability problems. Some of the UI is clunky. Data entry sequences are a little harder than they should be. Reports could be a little prettier. But overall it does work, and it's the best I've found on linux. (I would definitely appreciate pointers to something better.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97dd95216f61b7b4ca84a94b66c47844", "text": "There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943efcc83439fa03b5ee014a3ce8fbf", "text": "In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c2f67d30263121ee023c4e9234794cc1", "text": "TL;DR: Income is how much you make, net worth is the value of all your assets: cash, real estate, stocks, etc. With the case of Buffett: Berkshire Hathaway's - Buffett's company - market capitalisation is ~$460 Billion. Buffett controls 18% of shares. $460B x 18%: ~$80 Billion. So we can estimate that a large part of his net worth is tied up in BH stock (obviously this isn't perfect either as there are other factors at play here). BUT this is only on paper. Ie yes he's worth that, but he doesn't really have $80 Billion somewhere in a bank. He gets the money to live from other personal investments and business means.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f071e945bba3472b76c827d82dfbd1d", "text": "[Here's](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18) and explanation. The broadest interpretation is that there are quadrillions (1,000,000,000,000,000) of dollars in various markets. Bill Gates could become a Trillionaire, so even his wealth is a drop the ocean. Well, not really, but you get the idea. A lot of this money is constantly on the move, it is impossible to track down all the movements. Value is increasing, Value is destroyed etc. Your bank account can be tallied, but it's impossible to track down the money of the world, a continent or even a small country. Even bigger companies have trouble tracking down their money. The idea of the 'tally' is a bit of an outdated one, it came from a time when there was a gold standard, and when old fashioned marxism was still a thing. //edit: words, English, difficult", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49992736fd22c5c34efdd7992ee2229c", "text": "The logic is that the value of America could be determined by adding up the assets of all Americans. If houses are more expensive then America is richer (we own a large number of more expensive houses), even though no additional real assets have been created (as if more houses were built).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89027dae39e2b8fc85a969a574124174", "text": "And most wealth is squandered by the third generation. Someone has to become independently wealthy for the cycle to start over. Many will read this headline and use it as an excuse for their own lack of will to succeed. Someone had to succeed independently at some point, to earn the original wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c2b6ce53f3c3f98d525ff6c730df800", "text": "[Nope] (https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/07/13/worlds-rich-are-hording-10-trillion-in-cash/). It's all hoarded in various index accounts, mostly off-shore for obvious reasons. They want to protect their wealth, which is fine. But if you want to protect wealth you don't invest it all in means of production or real-state, which are both vulnerable to heavy crashes. You keep it protected interest-yielding accounts, in places like the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae4d07bfbe8ca228742be94731ed1111", "text": "It all depends on the country. In the US, mobility at the top is reasonably high (ie first generation millionaires, first generation billionaires, etc). In other western countries, mobility at the top is very poor. This is typically due to regulation and taxes that make it incredibly difficult for small businesses to be compliant and compete (ie hire a bad employee as a small startup, and it can cripple the business if you cannot easily fire them). Mobility at the bottom is reversed. Getting out of abject poverty in the US is incredibly difficult, almost impossible. In other western countries it is not easy, but far easier than the US thanks to those social safety nets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b035ad6a97d41e25812effa927950f2", "text": "In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9948dd52d6c2486e3016ceaefb19cd", "text": "I don't really understand the paper. To me, the top 1% do not make their income from salary, but rather from equity or various other asset-based income. Mixing both in the paper to assume that if you don't make $100k/y on salary by 25 you're a loser (sorry, part of the 99%) is dishonest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00ebe675aa3b9e72368efc6cbd63f1b1", "text": "Yes, but, that math is still inconsistent. . . . . . . . If you haven't figured out, I'm just messing with you. :D But, to answer your question. The highest GDP is not being even accessed by all members of our nation. Hence, some people are living a top 1st world nation, some are in moderate 2nd level nation; while a good chunk are living as though they are in a 3rd world/developing nation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75056fd07d30862bad206916f2cc6322", "text": "\"As was stated, households earning over $250k/yr don't all get their income one way. Below that threshold, even in the six figure range, most households are in one of two categories; salary/wage/commission workers, and those living off of nest eggs/entitlements (retired, disabled, welfare). Above $250k, though, are a lot of disparate types of incomes: Now, you specifically mentioned wage earners above $250k. Wage earners typically have the same \"\"tax havens\"\" that most of us do; the difference is usually that they are better able to make use of them: In other words, there are many ways for a high-end wage earner to live the good life and write a lot of it off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cbea4564e47ff4109b0975795473d6", "text": "\"Thats why I think its really funny when everyone says Bill Gates or Carlos Slim or anyone else like that is the \"\"richest\"\" in the world. It's all a floating benchmark based on that day's stock valuations and known stock holdings and has nothing to do with liquid cash or assets. I'd be more curious to know about old European money such as Rothschilds, old country royalty and the true value of Rockerfellers assets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e73ccf77803714df5c45a597cf7a9e4", "text": "In fairness decline of velocity of wealth might not be entirely explained by wealth disparity but environmental decline. (Or the low hanging fruit theory if you will.) This is is the socialist belief. If true economists have a lot to answer for. Beyond that the implementation of truly progressive tax rates could significantly help as the writer alludes to. The top is not anywhere near adequately sampled with such a low number of sample sizes which the IRS calls tax brackets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b309d8497110987412f3ebce00f7f42f", "text": "There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d7b55389bc2acad8bedf354250ef0ce", "text": "\"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3278e0a9c73e54e1e75295e5d1e9156a", "text": "\"There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding \"\"sweat equity\"\" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bd09952da9656e90f8489cbf956102a", "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", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fe924b06b4f744985a5c1a50c6871e3b", "text": "\"In your words, you want to \"\"easily determine whether an item was purchased as part of our individual accounts, or our combined family account.\"\" It's not clear exactly to me what kind of reporting you're trying to get. (I find a useful approach here to be to start with the output you're trying to get from a system, and then see how that maps to the input you want to give the system.) Here's some possibilities:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0be1ea65981958141ab4f3e15603c398", "text": "A parent company may own 70% of a subsidiary, and the remaining 30% is owned by someone else. Now the parent company has a controlling stake, so it can use the subsidiary's assets as it wishes, so the parent company can report 100% of the subsidiary's assets on the parent's balance sheet. Now here lies the problem, how can they report 100% of the assets when it only owns 70% of the subsidiary? That correction is the minority interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ce866c17821f50b358ce7a34ae8918e", "text": "\"This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer. The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because \"\"it was my idea,\"\" or because \"\"I was more experienced\"\" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you just say, \"\"to heck with it, we can NEVER figure out what the correct split is, so let's just be pals and go 50-50,\"\" you'll stay friends and the company will survive. Thus, I present you with Joel's Totally Fair Method to Divide Up The Ownership of Any Startup. For simplicity sake, I'm going to start by assuming that you are not going to raise venture capital and you are not going to have outside investors. Later, I'll explain how to deal with venture capital, but for now assume no investors. Also for simplicity sake, let's temporarily assume that the founders all quit their jobs and start working on the new company full time at the same time. Later, I'll explain how to deal with founders who do not start at the same time. Here's the principle. As your company grows, you tend to add people in \"\"layers\"\". The top layer is the first founder or founders. There may be 1, 2, 3, or more of you, but you all start working about the same time, and you all take the same risk... quitting your jobs to go work for a new and unproven company. The second layer is the first real employees. By the time you hire this layer, you've got cash coming in from somewhere (investors or customers--doesn't matter). These people didn't take as much risk because they got a salary from day one, and honestly, they didn't start the company, they joined it as a job. The third layer are later employees. By the time they joined the company, it was going pretty well. For many companies, each \"\"layer\"\" will be approximately one year long. By the time your company is big enough to sell to Google or go public or whatever, you probably have about 6 layers: the founders and roughly five layers of employees. Each successive layer is larger. There might be two founders, five early employees in layer 2, 25 employees in layer 3, and 200 employees in layer 4. The later layers took less risk. OK, now here's how you use that information: The founders should end up with about 50% of the company, total. Each of the next five layers should end up with about 10% of the company, split equally among everyone in the layer. Example: Two founders start the company. They each take 2500 shares. There are 5000 shares outstanding, so each founder owns half. They hire four employees in year one. These four employees each take 250 shares. There are 6000 shares outstanding. They hire another 20 employees in year two. Each one takes 50 shares. They get fewer shares because they took less risk, and they get 50 shares because we're giving each layer 1000 shares to divide up. By the time the company has six layers, you have given out 10,000 shares. Each founder ends up owning 25%. Each employee layer owns 10% collectively. The earliest employees who took the most risk own the most shares. Make sense? You don't have to follow this exact formula but the basic idea is that you set up \"\"stripes\"\" of seniority, where the top stripe took the most risk and the bottom stripe took the least, and each \"\"stripe\"\" shares an equal number of shares, which magically gives employees more shares for joining early. A slightly different way to use the stripes is for seniority. Your top stripe is the founders, below that you reserve a whole stripe for the fancy CEO that you recruited who insisted on owning 10%, the stripe below that is for the early employees and also the top managers, etc. However you organize the stripes, it should be simple and clear and easy to understand and not prone to arguments. Now that we have a fair system set out, there is one important principle. You must have vesting. Preferably 4 or 5 years. Nobody earns their shares until they've stayed with the company for a year. A good vesting schedule is 25% in the first year, 2% each additional month. Otherwise your co-founder is going to quit after three weeks and show up, 7 years later, claiming he owns 25% of the company. It never makes sense to give anyone equity without vesting. This is an extremely common mistake and it's terrible when it happens. You have these companies where 3 cofounders have been working day and night for five years, and then you discover there's some jerk that quit after two weeks and he still thinks he owns 25% of the company for his two weeks of work. Now, let me clear up some little things that often complicate the picture. What happens if you raise an investment? The investment can come from anywhere... an angel, a VC, or someone's dad. Basically, the answer is simple: the investment just dilutes everyone. Using the example from above... we're two founders, we gave ourselves 2500 shares each, so we each own 50%, and now we go to a VC and he offers to give us a million dollars in exchange for 1/3rd of the company. 1/3rd of the company is 2500 shares. So you make another 2500 shares and give them to the VC. He owns 1/3rd and you each own 1/3rd. That's all there is to it. What happens if not all the early employees need to take a salary? A lot of times you have one founder who has a little bit of money saved up, so she decides to go without a salary for a while, while the other founder, who needs the money, takes a salary. It is tempting just to give the founder who went without pay more shares to make up for it. The trouble is that you can never figure out the right amount of shares to give. This is just going to cause conflicts. Don't resolve these problems with shares. Instead, just keep a ledger of how much you paid each of the founders, and if someone goes without salary, give them an IOU. Later, when you have money, you'll pay them back in cash. In a few years when the money comes rolling in, or even after the first VC investment, you can pay back each founder so that each founder has taken exactly the same amount of salary from the company. Shouldn't I get more equity because it was my idea? No. Ideas are pretty much worthless. It is not worth the arguments it would cause to pay someone in equity for an idea. If one of you had the idea but you both quit your jobs and started working at the same time, you should both get the same amount of equity. Working on the company is what causes value, not thinking up some crazy invention in the shower. What if one of the founders doesn't work full time on the company? Then they're not a founder. In my book nobody who is not working full time counts as a founder. Anyone who holds on to their day job gets a salary or IOUs, but not equity. If they hang onto that day job until the VC puts in funding and then comes to work for the company full time, they didn't take nearly as much risk and they deserve to receive equity along with the first layer of employees. What if someone contributes equipment or other valuable goods (patents, domain names, etc) to the company? Great. Pay for that in cash or IOUs, not shares. Figure out the right price for that computer they brought with them, or their clever word-processing patent, and give them an IOU to be paid off when you're doing well. Trying to buy things with equity at this early stage just creates inequality, arguments, and unfairness. How much should the investors own vs. the founders and employees? That depends on market conditions. Realistically, if the investors end up owning more than 50%, the founders are going to feel like sharecroppers and lose motivation, so good investors don't get greedy that way. If the company can bootstrap without investors, the founders and employees might end up owning 100% of the company. Interestingly enough, the pressure is pretty strong to keep things balanced between investors and founders/employees; an old rule of thumb was that at IPO time (when you had hired all the employees and raised as much money as you were going to raise) the investors would have 50% and the founders/employees would have 50%, but with hot Internet companies in 2011, investors may end up owning a lot less than 50%. Conclusion There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, but anything you can do to make it simple, transparent, straightforward, and, above-all, fair, will make your company much more likely to be successful. The above awesome answer came from the Stack Exchange beta site for startups, which has now closed. I expect that this equity distribution question (which is strongly tied to personal finance) will come up more times in the future so I have copied the content originally posted. All credit for this excellent answer is due to Joel Spolsky, a moderator for the Startups SE beta site, and co-founder of Stack Exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "052392f5d66b263d95bf4d5e2838e319", "text": "\"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled \"\"The books of the family of Doe\"\", \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe\"\", or \"\"The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons\"\". Ask yourself, who \"\"owns\"\" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the \"\"partnership\"\" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called \"\"The books Children 1\"\", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using \"\"The family of Doe\"\" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c022b1449e01b86edb8c305f5f463c", "text": "\"Thanks for your reply. I think a lot of people are confused when talking about ownership, and I think it is a definitional issue. When a company issues stock (the first time or anytime), what they are doing is \"\"selling\"\" the right to a percentage of the dividend. They are not actually selling parts of the company to you. Everyone thinks this way though, and that has to do with the Chicago School economists who perpetuated their ideas of ownership which is what everyone know thinks is the case. This way of thinking about corporations and ownership is just wrong (not ethically), just erroneous. As I stated before, Lynn Stout of Cornell University explains this really well. I would encourage anyone to read more about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd60b550030f7f8980fa50a6a6cb4e1e", "text": "\"For a personal finance forum, this is too complicated for sustained use and you should find a simpler solution. For a mathematical exercise, you are missing information required to do the split fairly. You have to know who overlaps and when to know how to do the splits. For an extreme example, take your dates given: Considering 100 days of calculation period, If Roommate D was the only person present for the last 10 days, they should pay 100% of the grocery bill as they are the only one eating. From your initial data set, you can't know who should be splitting the tab for any given day. To do this mathematically, you'd need: But don't forget \"\"In Theory, Theory works. In Practice, Practice works.\"\" Good theory would say make a large, complicated spreadsheet as described above. Good practice would be to split up the costs in a much, much simpler way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04ef57511c2c2d392fbe137ef253607a", "text": "They're not going to look very hard at the asset value (except for actual cash in the bank), which doesn't bear much relationship to the real value of the company. More likely they will look at the last three years' earnings and choose a target P/E ratio based on that. The owner's share depends entirely on how much of the business they choose to sell. If the business is worth $60M and they want to raise $20M for themselves, then that means selling 33% of the company. If they want to raise $20M for the business as well, then that means selling half the company and retaining ownership of the other half, which is now worth $80M because of the cash infusion. But many stock exchanges will have minimum requirements for the percentage of the shares that are trading freely, so they will have to sell at least that much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bed8b2d05e6186d99205cd74037190f1", "text": "Ok well in that case here are my thoughts. Its been a while since I've done this type of school work so hope it's right/helpful. AR Oustanding = Avg AR / (credit sales/Operating Cycle*) = 35 *I'm guessing they didn't give you sales for the year or else I would divide by 365 but since you mentioned operating cycle I'm assuming thats the sales number you were given. So you want to divide the sales by 50 and then times it by the 35. Should give you the average AR. Inventory - I really don't remember having to calculate this so I'm just thinking logically here. You should be able to take COGS divide by the days in the period then times it by In Invetory. So = (COGS/Operating Cycle)* In Inventory = (COGS/50)*15 Accounts Payable....man, I'm afraid to drive you in the wrong direction on this one. Avg Accounts Payable/(COGS/Operating Cycle) = 40 Plug in COGS, divide by the operating cycle, 50 then times by 40, the days vendor credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcbcd44a0f1eab11fbf12d0209b09cac", "text": "Great read. Good points. My only complaint is that our North American union model could learn much from the German model where the union plays an important role IN the company. There are corrupt unions like anything else, which ruin it for the grassroots unions that operate as intended. I really don't think it's too much to ask for CEOs and companies to operate more like, for example, Costco; where the CEO sees his employees as his most important asset, and as such pays top wages in the industry, and provides benefits for families of employees. Somehow they still seem to reap a positive return for investors, while spreading the wealth by providing a living wage for their employees. Thanks for your well thought out, we'll organized reply! Cheers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c091e3281e221f90416b841dccd337be", "text": "Ok maybe I should have went into further detail but I'm not interested in a single point estimate to compare the different options. I want to look at the comparable NPVs for the two different options for a range of exit points (sell property / exit lease and sell equity shares). I want to graph the present values of each (y-axis being the PVs and x-axis being the exit date) and look at the 'cross-over' point where one option becomes better than the other (i'm taking into account all of the up front costs of the real estate purchase which will be a bit different in the first years). i'm also looking to do the same for multiple real estate and equity scenarios, in all likelihood generate a distribution of cross-over points. this is all theoretical, i'm not really going to take the results to heart. merely an exercise and i'm tangling with the discount rates at the moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48eaab39515f756b1bd1ac9f1bb5e6c5", "text": "The 1 for 1 split could be the case where a company is being split into two parts. The new part may be spun off, or sold to another company. Any time a company splits into two parts, the ratio of the resulting companies needs to be determined.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83", "text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505", "text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e881f1eca19a7e25e124723441ae8f3e", "text": "Another way to decide would be to do a fair valuation of the company agreeable to both the partners. Lets assume when you started the company it was worth $10,000 and to acquire 75%, you must have put $7,500 worth of money and effort. Similarly, the other partner must have put $2,500 worth of time and money. Now say after 2 years, you both agree that company is worth $50,000. And say now the company needs $10,000 worth of investment. Whoever invests that money should get 20% (10k/50k) of the company. Or each $1,000 will buy 2% in the company. Post this investment the equity division would be First investor (you) 75% of 80% = 60 % Second investor (your partner) 25% of 80% = 20% Third (new) investor = 20% Now, if you alone decide to put all the money you stake will be 60 + 20 = 80% and your partner will be reduced to 20%. If you guys want to maintain equity as it was (75-25), you need to put money in the same ratio ($7500 and $2500). If you do that- First investor 60% + 15% (for $7,500) = 75% Second investor 20% + 5% (for $2,500) = 25%. Please know for IP-centric company valuation is very subjective. But, do make an effort to do the valuation at every stage of the company so that you can put a number in terms of equity for each investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d6b8b176414df94cb82c6b650b20647", "text": "To me this sounds like a transaction, where E already owns a company worth 400k and can therefore pocket the money from D and give D 25% of the profits every year. There is nothing objective (like a piece of paper) that states the company is worth 400K. It is all about perceived value. Some investors may think it is worth something because of some knowledge they may have. Heck, the company could be worth nothing but the investor could have some sentimental value associated to it. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? It is worth what someone pays for it when they pay for it. I repeat- the 400K valuation is subjective. In return the investor is getting 25% ownership of the product or company. The idea is that when someone has ownership, they have a vested interest in it being successful. In that case, the investor will do whatever he/she can to improve the chances of success (in addition to supplying the 100K capital). For instance, the investor will leverage their network or perhaps put more money into it in the future. Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash? Perhaps. It is an asset that may later be used to fund inventory (for instance). ... and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? No. See what I said about the valuation just being perception. Note that the above analysis doesn't apply to all Dragons Den deals. It only applies to situations where capital is exchanged for ownership in the form of equity.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4ca1cf69abe98d80c2924f3666f41462", "text": "That is an opinion. I don't think so. Here are some differences: If you use credit responsibly and take the time to make sure the reporting agencies are being accurate, a good report can benefit you. So that isn't like a criminal record. What is also important to know is that in the United States, a credit report is about you, not for you. You are the product being sold. This is, in my opinion, and unfortunate situation but it is what it is. You will more than likely benefit for keeping a good report, even if you never use credit. There are many credit scores that can be calculated from your report; the score is just a number used to compare and evaluate you on a common set of criteria. If you think about it, that doesn't make sense. The score is a reflection of how you use credit. Having and using credit is a commitment. Your are committing to the lender that you will repay them as agreed. Your choice is who you decide to make agreements with. I personally find the business practices of my local credit union to be more palatable than the business practices of the national bank I was with. I chose to use credit provided by the credit union rather than by the bank. I am careful about where I take auto loans from, and to what extent I can control it, where I take home loans from. Since it is absolutely a commitment, you are personally responsible for making sure that you like who you are making commitments with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4", "text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b0d57edd6481ac8cd3517bceeb8db84f", "text": "Switch to cash for a few months. No debit. No credit. This will help for two reasons: Once you've broken the bad habits, you should be able to go back to cards for the convenience factor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b225d028539fb9f6cdad851859747e3", "text": "Get a credit card is NOT the answer. The reason people have a bad (or no) credit score is often because they're new to the country, have just turned 18, have previously fallen into arrears or are just bad with money. Getting a credit card is risky because, if you don't stay on top of your payments, it'll just damage your score even more. Now, it sounds like I hate credit cards - but I don't, and they do have their benefits. But avoid them if possible because they can be more hassle than they're worth (ie, paying the credit back on-time, cancelling accounts when the interest comes in, moving money in and out of accounts). It's risky borrowing money from anywhere whether it's a payday lender, a bank, a credit card, etc., so use them as a last resort. If you've got your own income then that's amazing!, try not to live outside of your means and your credit score will look after (and increase) itself. It takes time to build a good credit score, but always make sure you pay the people you owe on time and the full amount. I'd stick with paying your phone provider (and any other direct debits you have setup) and avoid getting a credit card. I'd recommend Noddle to keep track of your credit score and read their FAQ on how to help build it. Unlike Experian, it's free forever so not quite as detailed... but Noddle are owned by CallCredit - one of the biggest Credit Reference Agencies in the UK so they should have the latest information on yourself. In conclusion, if you already have financial commitments like a mobile phone bill, gym membership, store cards, anything that gets paid monthly by direct debit... your credit score will increase (provided you pay the full-amount on time). I hope this helps. PS. I don't work for any of the companies here, but I've been working in the finance sector (more specifically, short-term loans) for 3+ years now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bf43b55a55057cebd95e74979301a9a", "text": "To get a credit history you need to use credit from someone that reports to the major credit agencies. I don't suppose you have to BUY anything. You could just get a cash loan and hold it for a long time, but it seems silly to pay interest only for the purpose of building credit. The student loan should help you build credit. Also, I'm assuming you buy things all the time like gas, groceries, etc. Why not put those on a credit card and pay the balance off every month? That way you aren't buying anything specifically to get credit. Also there are numerous other benefits: Another suggestion: Set up your cards so the full balance is drafted from your bank automatically on the due date. That will ensure that you always pay on time (helping your credit) and also make you think twice about putting things on the card that you can't afford with the cash you have in the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eea62142409630f507da1c760d51d624", "text": "\"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. \"\"Zero cards, zero credit\"\" feels to me like one step shy of \"\"off the grid.\"\" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper? In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought. (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as \"\"a great debt score.\"\" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e691b6e7366ed7139f4b518953281dd1", "text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdd3abd6181a60196411e1ecab04972", "text": "Credit cards are a golden goose for banks, as they get to issue high-interest loans and simultaneously generate alot of fee income. Debit cards aren't quite as good, but they still generate substantial fee income -- ~2% of every credit/non-PIN debit transaction goes to the bank and credit card network. Credit histories exist because they are the most effective tool available to predict whether you will pay back your loans or not. You don't need a credit history to buy most things, you need a credit history to get a large loan. Think of it from perspective of a lender: Credit scoring is the bank's way screening out people who are expensive to do business with. It's objective, doesn't discriminate on the basis of race, sex or other factors, and you have recourse if the rating agencies have incorrect information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aca17422982de50fe4d228639d494ee0", "text": "this post offers great steps you can take to responsibly and effectively manage your existing line of credit. we believe that by carefully observing these guidelines, you will not only succeed in building and maintaining an excellent credit history but you will also avoid incurring pesky fees and charges usually imposed on delinquent unsecured credit cardholders. and do help us promote it by telling your friends to read and share it with their friends too!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c268fcbe2a1e81abbd9f972e63cda43", "text": "You can do this if you merge Credit Cards with personal loans. You will have to pay 1 upfront fee but you can bounce a balance between 4 CCs almost indefinitely if you do it right. You have to have good credit though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cc6c9116769ff348070c66a1ed49129", "text": "\"A credit card is a way to borrow money. That's all. Sometimes the loans are very small - $5 - and sometimes they are larger. You can have a credit card with a company (bank or whatever) that you have no other relationship with. They're not a property of a bank account, they are their own thing. The card you describe sounds exactly like a debit card here, and you can treat your Canadian debit card like your French credit card - you pay for things directly from your bank account, assuming the money is in there. In Canada, many small stores take debit but not credit, so do be sure to get a debit card and not only a credit card. Now as to your specific concerns. You aren't going to \"\"forget to make a wire.\"\" You're going to get a bill - perhaps a paper one, perhaps an email - and it will say \"\"here is everything you charged on your credit card this month\"\" along with a date, which will be perhaps 21 days from the statement date, not the date you used the card. Pay the entire balance (not just the minimum payment) by that date and you'll pay no interest. The bill date will be a specific date each month (eg the 23rd) so you can set yourself a reminder to check and pay your bill once a month. Building a credit history has value if you want to borrow a larger amount of money to buy a car or a house, or to start a business. Unlike the US, it doesn't really have an impact on things like getting a job. If you use your card for groceries, you use it enough, no worries. In 5 years it is nice to look back and see \"\"never paid late; mostly paid the entire amount each month; never went over limit; never went into collections\"\" and so on. In my experience you can tell they like you because they keep raising your limit without you asking them to. If you want to buy a $2500 item and your credit limit is $1500 you could prepay $1000 onto the credit card and then use it. Or you could tell the vendor you'd rather use your debit card. Or you could pay $1500 on the credit card and then rest with your debit card. Lots of options. In my experience once you get up to that kind of money they'd rather not use a credit card because of the merchant fees they pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2066d688f94920e45e8dae06fa2e778f", "text": "\"Build your credit history by paying the credit accounts you have on time. Review these periodically and close the ones you do not need. Ignore your score until it is time to make a large purchase. Make decisions regarding credit on the basis of whether the debit would be better paid with cash or credit. Not on credit score. Keep in mind that if your income is invested in your future, your money is working for you. The income that is paying debt is working for the lenders. Mint is a financial services industry company (Intuit). You are their product. Intuit makes money from Mint by placing ads on the site where you visit frequently, and by gathering data about those who subscribe to their service. They also are paid to refer you to credit card companies to \"\"build credit.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aca3ed9a7f0fbd96ff27dc29906f179", "text": "Credit history is local, so when you move to the US you start with the blank slate. Credit history length is a huge factor, so in the first year expect that nobody would trust you and you may be refused credit or asked for deposits. I was asked for deposits at cell phone company and refused for store cards couple of times. My advice - get a secured credit card (that means you put certain sum of money as a deposit in the bank and you get credit equal to that sum of money) and if you have something like a car loan that helps too (of course, you shouldn't buy a car just for that ;) but if you're buying anyway, just know it's not only hurting but also helping when you pay). Once you have a year or two of the history and you've kept with all the payments, you credit score would be OK and everybody would be happy to work with you. In 4-5 years you can have excellent credit record if you pay on time and don't do anything bad. If you are working it the US, a lot of help at first would be to take a letter from your company on an official letterhead saying that you are employed by this and that company and are getting salary of this and that. That can serve as an assurance for some merchants that otherwise would be reluctant to work with you because of the absence of credit history. If you have any assets overseas, especially if they are held in a branch of international bank in US dollars, that could help too. In general, don't count too much on credit for first 1-2 years (though you'd probably could get a car loan, for example, but rates would be exorbitant - easily 10 percentage points higher than with good credit), but it will get better soon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6605f0d1e1b5d93a94c0bb4af0b3ae50", "text": "Obviously the only way to have good credit is by owing money, and making payments as scheduled. To do this I would do everything I could to place all of your required expenses on a credit card. This can include paying rent, food, transportation, etc. These are all payments that you already make, but simply move then through a different payment vehicle. It sounds like at this time you may not have a credit card that allows you to do this, but I would watch out for those cards that come in via mail with all kinds of special deals. While you have not mentioned if you have any of this, make sure that you keep up with your past debt and negotiate repayment if needed. Once your credit improves, you should begin to see doors opening that are problems now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "deaa83b849c38055661efd74493c55d2", "text": "I would say you are typical. The way people are able to build their available credit, then subsequently build their average balances is buy building their credit score. According to FICO your credit score is made up as follows: Given that you had no history, and only new credit you are pretty much lacking in all areas. What the typical person does, is get a card, pay on it for 6 months and assuming good history will either get an automatic bump; or, they can request a credit limit increase. Credit score has nothing to do with wealth or income. So even if you had 100K in the bank you would likely still be facing the same issue. The bank that holds the money might make an exception. It is very easy to see how a college student can build to 2000 or more. They start out with a $200 balance to a department store and in about 6 months they get a real CC with a 500 balance and one to a second department store. Given at least a decent payment history, that limit could easily increase above 2500 and there could be more then one card open. Along the lines of what littleadv says, the companies even welcome some late payments. The fees are more lucrative and they can bump the interest rate. All is good as long as the payments are made. Getting students and children involved with credit cards is a goal of the industry. They can obtain an emotional attachment that goes beyond good business reasoning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfc9c5ef1521b95b5048561579618633", "text": "\"Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea. On an ABC Bank website, it has: \"\"Check your credit score for free\"\" button. You click it. Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow. If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product. This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage. A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this. Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities. Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow. Which again, is more information. If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7cbcdb950e3d7d98704510e40c5d6cb", "text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7ca594024cad43676e532bdd3be3a86d", "text": "No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d129de5049e0ce307a46337a8462b5c2", "text": "To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a9f4b7858f3cd4dfbaef38c8c54470b", "text": "This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57e727fb40b21bd2c80d0ec6311b1577", "text": "If the $882 is reported on W2 as your income then it is added to your taxable income on W2 and is taxed as salary. Your basis then becomes $5882. If it is not reported on your W2 - you need to add it yourself. Its salary income. If its not properly reported on W2 it may have some issues with FICA, so I suggest talking to your salary department to verify it is. In any case, this is not short term capital gain. Your broker may or may not be aware of the reporting on W2, and if they report the basis as $5000 on your 1099, when you fill your tax form you can add a statement that it is ESPP reported on W2 and change the basis to correct one. H&R Block and TurboTax both support that (you need to chose the correct type of investment there).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03a6584e1dfda72eca90e2256d9b90e3", "text": "If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d7e73075bf69bbbe5adeff90c043137", "text": "You normally only pay taxes on the difference between the sale price and the cost basis of the asset. In your example, you would probably pay taxes on the $10 difference, not the full sale price of $110. If you paid a commission, however, you would be taxed on your gain minus the commission you paid. Since you held the asset for less than a year, you wouldn't pay the long-term capital gains rate of 20%; you'd be taxed on the capital gain as if it were ordinary income, which depends on your federal income tax bracket. Also, littleadv makes a good point about the implications of buying the asset with after-tax funds too, so that's another part of the equation to consider as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b1313c7fe9c8a6cae73baa0bc146c45", "text": "Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78b34ddb0cc670476868575472df6541", "text": "When on this topic, you'll often hear general rules of thumb. And, similar to the 'only buy stocks if you plan to hold more than X years' there are going to be periods where if you buy at a bottom right before the market turns up, you might be ahead just months after you buy. I'd say that if you buy right, below market, you're ahead the day you close. Edit - I maintain, and have Schiller providing supporting data) that real estate goes up with inflation in the long term, no more, no less. If the rise were perfectly smooth, correlated 100% month to month, you'd find it would take X years to break even to the costs of buying, commission and closing costs. If we call that cost about 8%, and inflation averages 3, it points to a 3 year holding period to break even. But, since real estate rises and falls in the short term, there are periods longer than 4 years where real estate lags, and very short periods where it rises faster than the costs involved. The buy vs rent is a layer right on top of this. If you happen upon a time when the rental market is tight, you may buy, see the house decline 10% in value, and when the math is done, actually be ahead of the guy that rented.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28f92e26dcc503d4c07d8bac7f07e7a4", "text": "\"The examples you provide in the question are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter where the brokerage is or where is the company you own stocks in. For a fairly standard case of an non-resident alien international student living full time in the US - your capital gains are US sourced. Let me quote the following text a couple of paragraphs down the line you quoted on the same page: Gain or loss from the sale or exchange of personal property generally has its source in the United States if the alien has a tax home in the United States. The key factor in determining if an individual is a U.S. resident for purposes of the sourcing of capital gains is whether the alien's \"\"tax home\"\" has shifted to the United States. If an alien does not have a tax home in the United States, then the alien’s U.S. source capital gains would be treated as foreign-source and thus nontaxable. In general, under the \"\"tax home\"\" rules, a person who is away (or who intends to be away) from his tax home for longer than 1 year has shifted tax homes to his new location upon his arrival in that new location. See Chapter 1 of Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses I'll assume you've read this and just want an explanation on what it means. What it means is that if you move to the US for a significant period of time (expected length of 1 year or more), your tax home is assumed to have shifted to the US and the capital gains are sourced to the US from the start of your move. For example: you are a foreign diplomat, and your 4-year assignment started in May. Year-end - you're not US tax resident (diplomats exempt), but you've stayed in the US for more than 183 days, and since your assignment is longer than 1 year - your tax home is now in the US. You'll pay the 30% flat tax. Another example: You're a foreign airline pilot, coming to the US every other day flying the airline aircraft. You end up staying in the US 184 days, but your tax home hasn't shifted, nor you're a US tax resident - you don't pay the flat tax. Keep in mind, that tax treaties may alter the situation since in many cases they also cover the capital gains situation for non-residents.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60a3de3c4b6ba916c9d838b8a08d250c", "text": "\"When a question is phrased this way, i.e. \"\"for tax purposes\"\" I'm compelled to advise - Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog. In theory, one can create a loss, up to the $3K, and take it against ordinary income. When sold, the gains may be long term and be at a lower rate. In reality, if you are out of the stock for the required 30 days, it will shoot up in price. If you double up, as LittleAdv correctly offers, it will drop over the 30 days and negate any benefit. The investing dog's water bowl is half full.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac96c93bd48428d27dd972865d7dd0a", "text": "It turns out that in this special case for New York, they have a law that says that if you are changing your filing status from resident to nonresident, you must use the accrual method for calculating capital gains. So in this case, the date on the papers is the important one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29af954b3b5d2f33d38175d849fcf8ac", "text": "You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4", "text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04cfc11786b1d6c8709679a6c244060f", "text": "Assuming that you have capital gains, you can expect to have to pay taxes on them. It might be short term, or long term capital gains. If you specify exactly which shares to sell, it is possible to sell mostly losers, thus reducing or eliminating capital gains. There are separate rules for 401K and other retirement programs regarding down payments for a house. This leads to many other issues such as the hit your retirement will take.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1757e12b8309837d76e792e3845e77", "text": "\"I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account. If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return. Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k. If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment. If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level. I live in a \"\"community property state,\"\" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not. If I use \"\"community money\"\" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name. income during the marriage is considered community property. However property you bring into the marriage is not. And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states. I grew up in what's called an \"\"equitable property state.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dc0f3b07ea6236f4f0c99ab99df27344", "text": "First you should understand the basics of how insurance companies make money: In a simple scenario, assume 1,000 have car insurance. Assume that on average, 100 people have accidents per year, and that each accident costs $10,000. So, we can expect total costs to be $1,000,000 per year. Some of those costs will be paid by the drivers, who have some sort of 'deductible'. That is - the insurance company will only cover costs after the driver has themself paid some initial amount [something like, the first $1,000 of repairs is paid by the driver]. So now the insurance company expects to have to pay out $900,000 in total claims this year. If they want to pay those claims (and also pay their administrative costs, and earn a profit), they might want to have $1,250,000 in revenue. Across 1,000 people, that would be $1,250 / year in insurance premiums. Of course, the big question for the insurance company is: how much will they really need to pay out in insurance claims each year? The better they can predict that number, the more profitable they can be [because they can charge a much more accurate amount, which can earn them new customers and gives them insurance {pun} that each new customer is actually profitable to them on average]. So the insurance company spends a lot of time and money trying to predict your likelihood of a car accident. They use a lot of metrics to do this. Some might be statistical hogwash that they charge you because they feel they can [if every insurance company charges you extra for driving a 2-door instead of a 4-door, then they all will], and some might be based in reality. So they attempt to correlate all of the items in your list, to see if any of those items indicates that you should be charged more (or less) for your insurance. This is equal parts art and science, and a lot of it comes down to how they market themselves. ie: if an insurance company gives a discount for being in college, is that because college drivers are better drivers, or is it because they want to increase the number of young customers they have, so they can keep those customers for life? Therefore how each metric factors into your calculation will be based on the company using it. It would basically be impossible to 'come up with' the same answer as the insurance company by having the information you provided, because of how heavily dependant that answer is on statistics + marketing. As for how your state matters - some states may have different accident rates, and different payout systems. For example - is Hawaii driving more dangerous because of all the tourists driving rented cars faster than they should? Is New York less expensive to insure because better public health care means less cost is borne by the insurance company in the event of an accident [I have no idea if either of these things are the case, they are purely for hypothetical discussion purposes]. In short, make sure you get quotes from multiple providers, and understand that it isn't just the cost that changes. Check changes in coverage and deductibles as well [ie: if one company charges you $100 / month when everyone else charges $200 / month - make sure that the cheaper company doesn't limit its coverage in ways that matter to you].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c3516aa08cebd9b101fbf920ebe743b", "text": "Does the Insurance value differ from state to state (for example I've a car in Hawaii and there is another car in Illinois with same model, make and same features), does the Insurance vary for both? Yes, quotes will vary based on where you live for various reasons, (propensity for accidents, value of cars, etc.), and state laws regarding required car insurance can vary. How is the insurance quote calculated? It's likely a proprietary formula that the insurance company will not disclose. If they did, they could be giving away a competitive advantage. However, like all insurance, the goal is to determine the probability of the insured having an accident, and the projected cost of such an accident. That will be based on actuarial tables for each of the risk factors you mention.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d821d27f91a569b9b6f29f00b54431f", "text": "Former software developer at an insurance company here (not State Farm though). All of the above answers are accurate and address how the business analysts come up with factors on which to rate your quote. I wanted to chime in on the software side here; specifically, what goes into actually crunching those numbers to produce an end result. In my experience, business analysts provide the site developers with a spreadsheet of base rates and factors, which get imported into a database. When you calculate a quote, the site starts by taking your data, and finding the appropriate base rate to start with (usually based on vehicle type, quote type (personal/commercial/etc.) and garaging zip code for the US). The appropriate factors are then also pulled, and are typically either multiplicative or additive relative to the base rate. The most 'creative' operation I've seen other than add/multiply was a linear interpolation to get some kind of gradient value, usually based on the amount of coverage you selected. At this point, you could have upwards of twenty rating factors affecting your base rate: marriage status, MVR reports, SR-22; basically, anything you might've filled into your application. In the case of MVR reports specifically, we'd usually verify your input against an MVR providing service to check that you didn't omit any violations, but we wouldn't penalize for lying about it...we didn't get that creative :) Then we'd apply any fees and discounts before spitting out the final number. With all that said, these algorithms that companies apply to calculate quotes are confidential as far as I'm aware, insofar as they don't publish those steps anywhere for the public to access. The type of algorithm used could even vary based on the state you live in, or really just when the site code is arbitrarily updated to use a new rating system. Underwriters and agents might have access to company-specific rating tables, so they might have more insight at the company level. In short, if there's an equation out there being used to calculate your rate, it's probably a huge string of multiplications with some base rate additions and linear interpolations peppered in, based on factors (and base rates) that aren't readily publicized. Your best bet is to not go through the site at all and talk to a State Farm agent about agency-specific practices if you're really curious about the numbers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e118f7b494caf6f02add38f418a4ed4", "text": "Question 1: Yes Question 2: There is no simple formula. Car insurance is mostly Statistics, because you have so many millions of cases that the variance is really low. This also means that, because the cost can be estimated so precisely, it is difficult to make an offer better than the competitors. For that reason every insurance company makes there own, arbitrary, segmentation of the data which leads them identify low risk groups they can offer a bonus to. Common ones are type of car or and driving experience, but it could be anything that is not forbidden by anti-discrimination-laws. Also additional perks like towing insurance etc. may give them an opportunity do differentiate themselves or to make easy profit. In fact it is a common tactic to offer prices that make close to no profit to fill up your book, then raise tariffs in then following years an make you profit with those who are to lazy to switch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71d7613dffbf77d038bc2d6ed139c3e2", "text": "\"On top of the given answers, the type of referral will also factor in. When you're up for renewal and go to a comparison site (in the UK: CompareTheMarket, MoneySupermarket, Confused, GoCompare, ... ) and struggle accurately through all their lists of questions, you see that some of the data differs (e.g., not all the same jobs can be entered; if you have had an accident, not all ask whose fault it was and/or don't leave the option \"\"not yet resolved\"\" --possibly forcing you to guess which way it will be adjudicated,-- and/or what the total repair cost was). So as these referrers feed slightly different data to roughly the same set of insurance providers, you will get slightly different quotes on the same providers. And expect your own provider to offer a slightly better quote than you'll get in reality for renewing: The referrer's (one-time) cut has to be still taken off, but they count it as a new client so somebody gets a bonus for that --- you they disregard as a captive client and give what boils down to a loyalty penalty. [Case in point: I had an unresolved car accident, resolved months later in my favour. With all honest data including unresolved claim and its cost and putting my 'accident-free years' factor at 0 instead of 7, my old provider quoted about 8% more than the previous year on comparison sites; but my renewal papers quoted me 290% more, upon telephone enquiry the promised to refund the difference if court found in my favour though they refused to give this in writing. So: No thanks!] Then the other set of referrals they get is from you directly going to their website asking for a quote. They know what type of link you've followed (banner, or google result, etc), they may know some info from your browser's cookies (time spent where) or other tracking service, and from your data they may guess how tech-savvy and shop-wise you are, and scale your offer accordingly. [Comparison-site shoppers are lumped together at a relatively high savvy-level, of course!]. Companies breaking down your data and their own in a particular way can find advantages and hence offer you better terms, as said in the main answer (this is like Arbitration in stock exchanges, ensuring a certain amount of sanity: if there's something to exploit, somebody will, and everybody will follow). It may be that they find a certain group of people maybe more accident-prone but cheaper to deal with (more flexible in repair-times, or easy to bully in accepting shared-fault when they weren't at fault), or they want a certain client (for women, for civil servants, for sporty drivers, for homeowners --- often for cross-selling other insurance services). Or they claim to want pensioners because the company can offer them 'a familiar voice' (same account manager always contacting them) while they're easier to bamboozle and less likely to shop around when offered a rubbish deal. Also, 100% straight comparison of competing offers isn't possible as the fine details of the T&Cs (terms & conditions) would differ, as well as various little pinpricks in the claims handling process. And depreciation of a car, and various ways of dealing with it: You insure it for the buying prices, but two years later it's worth about 40% less on paper --- so in case of total loss, replacing like-for-like will cost you still at least 80% of the value for which you've been insuring it while they'll probably offer you the 100-40= 60%. Mostly because instead of your trusted car you have something unknown that may have hidden defects, or been mistreated and about to die. [Case in point: My 3-y-old dealer-bought car's gearbox died just outside the 6month warranty period, notwithstanding its \"\"150-item inspection you can rely on\"\". In the end the national brand agreed to refund the parts (15% of what I paid for the car) but not the labour (a few hours).] And any car model's value differs (in descending order) from its \"\"forecourt price\"\", \"\"private selling price\"\", \"\"part exchange price\"\", and \"\"auction price\"\". Depending on your ompanies may happily insure you for forecourt price (=what you paid to dealer) but then point out that the value of that car is the theoretical P/X value, i.e., the car without anybody's profit, far less than you've been paying for. [Conversely, if you crash it after insuring below market value, they can pay you your stupidly low figure.]\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b54f359812447b459ce484e396958a5f", "text": "Alright, IRS Publication 463: Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses Business and personal use. If you use your car for both business and personal purposes, you must divide your expenses between business and personal use. You can divide your expense based on the miles driven for each purpose. Example. You are a sales representative for a clothing firm and drive your car 20,000 miles during the year: 12,000 miles for business and 8,000 miles for personal use. You can claim only 60% (12,000 ÷ 20,000) of the cost of operating your car as a business expense Obviously nothing helpful in the code. So I would use option 1, weight the maintenance-related mileage by the proportion of business use. Although if you use your car for business a lot (and perhaps have a spouse with a car), an argument could be made for 3. So I would consider my odds of being audited (even lower this year due to IRS budget cuts) and choose 1 or 3. And of course never throw anything away until you're room temperature.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52fc427159b58caa5be7a0b7f7f92bb0", "text": "Credit scores, or at least components of them, can sometimes factor into how much you pay for car insurance. Source: Consumer Reports: How a Credit Score Increases your Premium", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11fdb9cf51cdcb86c5b993bc0d90627b", "text": "The question states :- Our insurance company is offering a 30% discount on an $8200/year commercial policy, if we install sprinklers. The insurance is paid in two installments. ... This appears to mean six-monthly payments, so I'll make some comparison calculations using six-monthly loan repayments to keep things simple. Without the loan or sprinklers the insurance costs $4100 every six months. Using this loan payment formula, the calculation below shows, with the 30% discounted insurance, sprinkler maintenance and loan repayment, you would be paying $4655.28 every six months. The discount required to break even is 43.5%. I.e. rearranging the equation :- Alternatively, with the discount of 30% you would break even if the six-monthly repayment amount was $1030. Solving the payment equation for s gives an equation for the loan :- So with the 30% discount you would break even if the loan required was $25989. Checking by back-calculating the periodic payment amount, a :- Likewise we can keep the loan at $40000 and solve for t to find the break-even loan term :- (Note, in this formula Log denotes the natural logarithm.) Now we can set some values :- So with break-even payments the $40000 loan is paid off in just under 65.5 years. I.e. checking :- This just beats the $4100 cost of proceeding without the sprinklers. Notes If your loan repayment was monthly it would reduce the cost of the loan slightly. The periodic interest rate is calculated from the APR according to the method used in the EU and in some cases in US. The calculations above were run using Mathematica.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2d60a42e03da9edd8d234615f34b442", "text": "\"An answer from a psychological viewpoint: money does not have a linear value to people. If you have $10.000, losing one dollar doesn't really matter. Losing all $10.000 is more than 10.000 times as bad. As a simple example of a non-linear function, let's use the \"\"square root\"\" function. Let's say that having $100 is ten times as good as having $1, and having $10000 is ten times as good as having $100. Now, this means that an insurance may have a negative expectation when expressed in dollars (since the insurance company is making a profit), but the expected value still can be positive. Let's assume the premium is $150 and there's a 1% chance it will pay $10.000. Clearly in dollars the expected loss is $50. But in the value to you (using that same square root function), the premium is just -0.75 (sqrt(9850)-sqrt(10000) and the expected payout is 1 (sqrt(10000)*1%). Intuitive: you won't notice the premium, if you're rich enough that you don't need the insurance. But once you do need the insurance, you could now be so poor that you appreciate the payout. As a side effect - this also shows that you want an insurance with a fairly high deductible. If a $10.000 loss is a risk you can bear, then you don't need insurance for losses in the order of $100. And that's even ignoring the fact that such small payouts have relatively high administrative costs for insurance companies, which is why the premium discount for high deductibles can be disproportionally high.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac7c06f974f47305b96191c629a5ffa5", "text": "Here's an example (US, not Canada) that shows up to a 30% increase for first 6 months after a >30 day lapse, but the best data will come from actual quotes from insurers. If you can do without driving for 2 years it's almost certainly worth dropping coverage and a car for that duration and paying an increased insurance rate for a spell after the lapse. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but when living with my parents they could not exclude me from their insurance once I was a licensed driver. The insurance company considered me to have access to all vehicles, so my presence increased insurance rates. If you live with your mother, you'll have to check with your insurer to see how that works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "035ef6883a6d27a73557547ce22e2096", "text": "Why do I need to put her information into these quotes? Because you are getting your quote through a website instead of via a human being. They likely programmed their system for the most likely scenarios. Doesn't her insurance cover her driving other people's cars? Yes, it should. The big questions: for how much damage and is it liability only? My advice: don't be lazy, make the calls and find out the details. Not everything can be answered on the internet. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab252f1dce22980b61eddfe374b686c3", "text": "\"&gt; Let's just say the insurance industry knows a lot more about underwriting than you do. I'm sorry, but that is a meaningless statement. I work in insurance (first as a consultant, before 'retiring' to work in insurance distribution a few years ago), and I know that our industry frequently uses flawed or outdated methodologies due to the simple fact that insurance companies are very conservative and *very* resistant to change when it comes to changes to their core business. Unless you can show a direct, negative impact on the bottom line caused by the currently used method, you are unlikely to make any changes at all. In this case, if the entire US car insurance industry is using the same flawed system, it won't affect a single company if they also stick to it. Until 1996, before the current system was introduced, insurance companies in Germany used to rate liability insurance for cars (almost) exclusively by engine power output. The industry had known that this method was fundamentally flawed since at least the late 1980s (comprehensive and partial coverage had been rated by the 'new' system for a few years at this point, which had also taken years to work out), but it took additional years of planning, negotiations and cooperation by the entire industry to change to the new system for liability. So please, do not ever assume that \"\"the insurance companies are the experts, they know what they are doing!\"\". It might very well be the case that they are stuck with flawed/outdated systems simply because there is no sufficiently strong impulse to change what they do. The current Tesla rate adjustment situation is a wonderful example of this - it apparantly took AAA *5 years* since the Model S first came out to realise that their initial estimate was wrong (it seems unlikely that the accident rate or repair costs have suddenly changed over the last year) and take appropriate actions. By late 2013, there were easily enough Teslas on the road (about 20,000) to get realiable data, yet nothing happened for nearly another 4 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06368952a7b7b595f78c3934c853bbcd", "text": "The best way to determine how much it will cost you is to call the insurance companies to get a quote from them for all the vehicles that you are planning on purchasing. They will have a set amount depending on the year/make/model of the car combined with all your personal details like where you live, age, sex, occupation. There are many online sites where you an get quotes as well, though talking with a rep may be the better option since you have a lot of questions. If you are still living with your parents, you may be able to get a cheaper rate with that company as you might qualify for a multi-vehicle discount or combined property/vehicle insurance with them. You might also be able to get a better rate since you were probably insured as a secondary driver with that company for several years. The cost of your auto insurance will depend also on what type of premium you choose. For instance, it will be cheaper if you opt to only purchase 3rd party liability insurance (which only covers the cost of repairing the 3rd party's vehicle - ie the person you hit). You may also get discounts for having certain (optional) safety equipment/options - like snow tires. You will need to have your insurance purchased and sorted out before you are able to drive your car out of the dealership. For a male with ~10 years driving experience and a clean record. You could probably find something good for about $120 a month. Of course, this depends on the many factors listed above.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa2988eabe7f775dbbabdcf23c5e69e3", "text": "\"Traditional insurance agent guy here. There is no right answer in my opinion because your individual needs cannot be generalized. There are a variety of factors that influence the price charged to you including but not limited to your past claims history, geographic location, credit profile, and the carrier's book of business itself. This is just a small sampling, in reality their pricing calculations may be far more complicated. The point is there is no one-size-fits all carrier. My agency works with 15 different carriers. Sometimes we can offer the best combination of coverage and cost to a prospective client that beats their existing coverage; other times we are nowhere close to being competitive. The most important thing you can do is find a person/site/company you can trust and one that does not take advantage of you. Insurance policies are complex and \"\"getting the best deal\"\" may oftentimes mean lessening coverage without realizing it. So I would recommend using whatever service channel (online, phone, local agent) that's most convenient and consultative for you. And otherwise, shop around once every year or two to make sure you're still getting the most for your money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f79e57b1d86b5de06f91f3c14f674b8", "text": "As for a formula, there isn't a simple one that you can apply to every type insurance. I'll try my best for a simple answer. Is the event devastating enough to change your lifestyle (looking at life necessities, not wants and nice to haves)? Is the event very likely to happen? Do you have enough emergency funds to cover such an event? Once that emergency fund is utilized, how long does it take you to restore that fund to be ready for the next event? If the event is devastating enough and is very likely to happen and you do not have the cash to cover the event, and/or it would take too long to restore that emergency fund, then it makes sense to consider insurance. Then you would have to examine if the benefit(s) outweight cost of the premium paid for the insurance. If it is pennies of premium for a dollar of benefit, then it makes sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f3358b29eec782ddab5b1b3b864a075", "text": "\"Your wife is probably not going to be able to get a policy until all tests are complete and the doctors give her a clean bill of health. A change in your health could make your premiums 50% to 75% higher than they would be if you applied for a policy in perfect health. Health history is one of the biggest factor in calculating an LTCi premium. The average age for purchasing a policy is 59. Including all rate increases, the average long-term care insurance premium is $1,591 per year, based on my calculations from a 2015 National Association of Insurance Commissioners report with 2014 data. Because of new consumer protections designed to prevent rate increases, policies purchased today do cost more than older policies. In 2015, the average premium for a new policy was $2,532 per year, according to a LIMRA survey of most companies selling long-term care insurance. (Couples can get discounts as high as 30 percent when purchasing policies at the same time.) Do NOT work with just a local insurance agent who sells many different types of insurance. ONLY work with an insurance agent who specializes in LTC insurance and that represents at least 7 of the top companies. There are probably a couple of hundred agents in the country that specialize in LTC, are independent agents representing a lot of companies AND have a lot of experience. Interview at least 3 different agents. Get quotes from every agent you speak with and ask each of them their opinion about which policy you should get. Go with the agent who seems the most knowledgeable and professional. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from a \"\"financial advisor\"\". They are usually limited to offering only a few companies (because of their broker/dealer arrangements) and they rarely understand LTC underwriting. Do NOT buy LTC insurance from the company you get auto insurance or home insurance with. And do NOT buy a policy just because your retirement association or alumni association recommends it. SHOP around. In your wife's case it would probably be wise to apply to more than one company at the same time in case one of them denies her application. Here is an article I wrote for NextAvenue.org (a website owned by PBS) which answers some of the most common misconceptions about LTC insurance: An Insurance Agent’s Case for Buying Long-Term Care Insurance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf6049ea982c6dc34eeb8fa8d6e68ac1", "text": "Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven. Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year. The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads. The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "322d5a6f7c2a8f2b67dd39abd2e76531", "text": "Insurance rates are about assessing risk. If the insurer has no way to reliably and easily assess usage, they will not reduce the premiums. Many companies are providing tracking devices that connect to the OBD-II port. This not only tracks actual miles driven, but can typically track aggressive driving, time of day, length of trips, and other information. Unless you are using this kind of device to give the insurer actionable feedback on your driving habits, do not expect any discounts for mileage or usage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b08e15959e01191e6cf76c05c4b50af0", "text": "The problem you'll have is that premium income is a vague term so you have to figure out what they mean by a) premium and b) income. Gross or net of reinsurance and acquisition costs? Written or earned basis? Combined ratios are also a pig, very commonly they are loss ratio + expense ratio --- but of course loss ratio is losses incurred / premium earned while expense ratio is expenses paid / premium written so it's a self-inconsistent measure. And then there's investment income, and then there's reserve releases...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9df8d0c8d093cd3767f3871e8c58682e", "text": "Real Estate potentially has two components of profit, the increase in value, and the ongoing returns, similar to a stock appreciating and its dividends. It's possible to buy both badly, and in the case of stocks, there are studies that show the typical investor lags the market by many percent. Real estate is not a homogeneous asset class. A $200K house renting for $1,000 is a far different investment than a $100K 3 family renting for $2,000 total rents. Both exist depending on the part of the country you are in. If you simply divide the price to the rent you get either 16.7X or 4.2X. This is an oversimplification, and of course, interest rates will push these numbers in one direction or another. It's safe to say that at any given time, the ratio can help determine if home prices are too high, a bargain, or somewhere in between. As one article suggests, the median price tracks inflation pretty closely. And I'd add, that median home prices would track median income long term. To circle back, yes, real estate can be a good investment if you buy right, find good tenants, and are willing to put in the time. Note: Buying to rent and buying to live in are not always the same economic decision. The home buyer will very often buy a larger house than they should, and turn their own 'profit' into a loss. e.g. A buyer who would otherwise be advised to buy the $150K house instead of renting is talked into a bigger house by the real estate agent, the bank, the spouse. The extra cost of the $225K house is the 1/3 more cost of repair, utilities, interest, etc. It's identical to needing a 1000 sq ft apartment, but grabbing one that's 1500 sq ft for the view.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c272626701d3d9b5cce218299824fd1e", "text": "Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. 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 your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a49a54204023c175881cedcd8f91556f", "text": "What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60c52cf4bde6b6a5ccd6aadd0997b568", "text": "\"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? If you don't know your options, I would suggest reading some material on it that might be a little more extensive than an answer here (for instance, http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/ has some good and free information about a myriad of financial topics). With retirement accounts you can roll it over or leave it in the current account. Things to look at would be costs of the accounts, options you have in each account, and the flexibility of moving it if you need to. Depending on what type of retirement account it is (Roth 401K, Traditional 401K, etc, you may have some advantages with moving it to another type). The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? I have the extra money and it would not be a hardship to do so unless that money can be best used somewhere else? Unless I was making more money in a savings/investing/business opportunity, I would pay off the student loans in a lump sum. The reason is basic opportunity cost (economics) - if a better opportunity isn't on the horizon with your money, kill the interest you're paying because it's money you're losing every month. With the money just sitting in the bank I get a little sick feeling thinking that I can be doing something better with that. Outside of general savings you could look at investing in stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, currencies, lending club loans (vary by state), or something similar. Or you could try to start a business or invest in a start up directly (though, depending on the start up, they may not accept small investors). Otherwise, if you don't have a specific idea at this time, it's best to have money in savings while you ponder where else it would serve you. Keep in mind, having cash on hand, even if it's not earning anything, can bail you out in emergencies or open the door if an opportunity arises. So, you're really not \"\"losing\"\" anything by having it in cash if you're patiently waiting on opportunities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35298261a2ee06ab01d4624c2c450040", "text": "\"You ask multiple question here. The 401(k) - move it to an IRA. As others stated,this will lower your costs, and open up a potential I didn't see mentioned, the conversion to a Roth IRA. A year in which your income is lower than average is a great opportunity to convert a bit of the IRA enough to \"\"top off\"\" the lower bracket in which you may find yourself. The company stock? If you never worked for the company would you have bought this stock? Would you buy it now? If not, why keep it? The loan is the toughest decision. Will you sleep better if it were paid in full? What's the rate? 6% or more, I'd pay it off, under 4%, less likely. I'd invest much of the cash and the $8000 in stock in a Dilip-recommended VFINX, and use the dividends to pay the loan each month.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ca6ef94cbabc04ae7b7ef2188c6eb6df", "text": "Bank of America is the worst. Once I had a joint account with another individual that I had funded out of my account to make payroll. When I found out that he had screwed two other people by stealing the payroll money I decided to disburse it myself and transferred it back to my corporate account on which I was the only signer. He went back to the bank and effected a withdrawal from my account to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, put the money in the joint account and removed me as a signer. The bank wouldn't give me my money back and I never collected from him. Another time I tried to close my sons' accounts which were in inactive status. Every day for a week they told me they could not close the account until it was active, but they were working on making it active. Chase could do this in a minute. I finally went to a branch and loudly informed the manager that maybe the bank was insolvent and that I should call the FDIC to see why they won't release my money. He wanted to take me into his office. I told him loudly, I know all about DDAs, Savings and CDs, I have run deposit operations for a major bank and wrote software to process them. Just put a hold on the account, write me two cashiers check and offset them with a suspense voucher. You do know how to write a suspense voucher don't you? It's just a general ledger entry to a suspense account. Well he was so embarassed he would do anything to get me out of the branch and gave me the cashier's checks. Fuck B of A.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5bd30df315f45d3433c7b6140119124", "text": "\"I'm no accounting expert, but I've never heard of anyone using a separate account to track outstanding checks. Instead, the software I use (GnuCash) uses a \"\"reconciled\"\" flag on each transaction. This has 3 states: n: new transaction (the bank doesn't know about it yet), c: cleared transaction (the bank deducted the money), and y: reconciled transaction (the transaction has appeared on a bank statement). The account status line includes a Cleared balance (which should be how much is in your bank account right now), a Reconciled balance (which is how much your last bank statement said you had), and a Present balance (which is how much you'll have after your outstanding checks clear). I believe most accounting packages have a similar feature.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98a527b30097928edd73bebb529339ae", "text": "This discussion indicates that the accounts are not reported to credit agencies, but the post is also over a year old, and who knows how reliable the information is (it's fairly well-traveled, though). It's based on one person calling up Trans Union and E-Trade and asking people directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bed398557ab5aed028262e5a1c0a590", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f852b2dde85d5a0bd328e9ec0f79c75", "text": "Your last sentence is key. If you have multiple accounts, it's too easy to lose track over the years. I've seen too many people pass on and the spouse has a tough time tracking the accounts, often finding a prior spouse listed as beneficiary. In this case, your gut is right, simpler is better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd", "text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c92aca1f7227e4c3bc1b62c167806fc1", "text": "\"No, this is not true. All of these banks are subject to audits by one of the four largest accounting firms in the country. These firms are worth billions of dollars. They would not risk their reputation opining on the validity of financial statements of companies that are \"\"allowed to keep two sets of books.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39c82585353ac6f469c103758f56eea7", "text": "Well, you're business/accounting acumen is nothing to brag about and your character is still out for judgment, though your insistence on trying to make this point despite being wrong is sort of working against you. Other than that, I don't know anything else about you to make that kind of assessment. Though you are tenacious, I'll give you that. You keep arguing with me despite saying you were done with this. So that could possibly be a positive character trait.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a5bb0e9b47404b931db4000eeea9f93", "text": "It's sad. My mother lost her job after a brutal divorce. BOA bought up Countrywide, then when my mother pleaded for assistance BOA said they could not help her unless she was behind/in default of her mortgage. She tried to do a deed-in-lieu with a lawyer and BOA refused to accept the deed-in-lieu many times. Then BOA sold her mortgage to Green Tree (?) and they refused her deed-in-lieu as well. This went on for over 2 years and they foreclosed on the house. I told my mother to sue because they should have accepted her deed-in-lieu because it was approved by the court in her bankruptcy but she was tired of trying to save her house that she just walked away. 6 months after she left and moved in with my sister Green Tree called her offering a refinance at a lower rate and a mortgage payment that was less than a typical car payment. Now 5 years later my mom is just going to pay cash for her house and never do a mortgage again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d2d96950af76dbab5eb5dc2f0f4e461", "text": "I quit diligently reconciling monthly statements some years before everything was online, when I realized that for years before that, every time I thought I found a mistake, it was always my own error. I was spending a fair amount of time (over the years) doing something that wasn't helping me. So I quit. That said, I do look at the statements and/or check the transactions on a regular basis (I now use email notifications of automatic deposits as the trigger, and then look over withdrawals, too) to make sure everything looks appropriate. I'm less concerned about a bank error than I am about identity or account theft.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac28e80f3aded6c61b2c5c30003cc89", "text": "Sounds like they need to tighten the regulation around that and specify how long one can be off and tie that to further employment. In other words, you can't go off and come back to just quit, but need a specified time off, and a specified time back on the job. Beyond entry level, can't you hire contract workers for the interim? Surely the UK has temp agencies for just this sort of thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57abae6c2d43dc8a8a1ff90716c636d9", "text": "Wow, that is filled with misinformation. What are you trying to achieve here? L1 has a 5yr limit, and requires a ton of evidence to support the fact that you were previously working in a managerial/executive function with the same parent company. In order to prove that, you need to be making a reasonably large salary too. It has to be applied for by the employing company, through a lawyer. What a load of hogwash, don't write about topics you have no knowledge of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91fa8adecec3d85a8d239f24f373c472", "text": "I don't still have an account there, but ING Direct used to do that for you. They would set it so money would be freed up every 6 months but after a while you would have like 5-year ones to maximize returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aba3db1c635fb56858a3325e635d1f4", "text": "\"Page 62, https://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/media/2017/01/26223015/2016-PSH-Annual-Update-Presentation-FOR-DISTRIBUTION.pdf Looking at Pershing Square's 13-F, Bill Ackman is gonna see his money soon Recently I posted a friend's resume on craigslist and some brainwashed herbalife chick was spamming e-mail responses to all the people who had posted their resume, regardless of whether the position the candidate was seeking or qualifications the candidate had was relevant or not. I told her it's a bad idea to spam using her real name and that MLMs are trash. Also, the person whose resume I posted was looking for a job in finance and that she clearly didn't read the ad. Her responses: \"\"Thanks for your opinion. We are all entitled to them. Finance to me means money! I teach people how to make money! Putting their skills to work for themselves. Good luck to you in your search! You sound like you got a shining personality.\"\" \"\"PS, if you are in finance you probably know your stuff! Go ahead and check out what Carl Icahn thinks about network marketing. He's undeniably the wealthiest man in the United States of America. He knows a thing or two about Finance. He backs are company amazing. Maybe I'll be close-minded. I don't want to work with you, but you don't really know what you're talking about.\"\" made me lol and facepalm\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9436059cc8d42a2266be9bde9f4ef66c", "text": "\"You're not focusing in the right place and neither is anyone else on this thread because this isn't about the guy owning you money... This is about you not having enough money to pay your rent. If rent wasn't due and the utility bills weren't piling up, you wouldn't be trying to justify taking money out of someone else's account. So let's triage this. Your #1 problem isn't hunting down Dr. Deadbeat's wallet. So put a pin in that for now and get to the real deal. Getting rent paid. Right? OK, you said he called \"\"regarding a business I have\"\". It's great that you have your own business. Are you also employed elsewhere? If you are, then you really should simply go to your employer and tell them you are in financial distress. Tell them that right now you can't cover your rent or bills and you want to know if they can help, i.e. give you an advance from your paycheck, do a withdrawal/loan from a retirement savings that's in your employee benefits package, etc... They will HELP YOU because it's in their best interest as much as it is in yours. Foregoing that, consider these thoughts... If you were to go your grandparents telling them what you told all of us here, and ask them the same \"\"do you think it's ok to...\"\", they would say something close to \"\"Absolutely DO NOT touch someone else bank account EVER! It doesn't matter what information you have, how you got it, or what you think they owe you. Do NOT touch it. There's a legal system that will help you get it from them if they truly do owe it to you.\"\" I guarantee you this, withdrawing funds from an account on which you are NOT an authorized signatory is both financial theft as well as identity theft. Bonus if you do it on a computer, because you'd then be facing criminal charges that go beyond your specific legal district, i.e. you'd face criminal charges on a national level. If convicted, odds are you'd be sentenced within the penal guidelines of the Netherlands 1983 Financial Penalties Act (FPA). Ergo, you would have much much much less money in the very near future, which would feel like an eternal walk through the Hell of the court system. Ultimately, over your lifetime you would be exponentially poorer than you may think you are now. I strongly urge you to rebrand this \"\"financial loss\"\" as \"\"Tuition at the School of Hard Knocks\"\". There's one last thing... the train jumps the tracks for me during your story... This guy called you? Right?... (raised eyebrow) What kind of business do you \"\"have\"\"? The sense of desperation and naiveté in your urgent need for money to pay rent. The fact that you are accepting payment for services by conducting a bank transfer specifically from your clients account directly toward your own utility bills is a big red flag. Bypassing business accounting and using revenue for personal finances isn't legitimate business practices. Plus you are doing it by using the bank information of brand new client who is a TOTAL stranger. Now consider fact that this total stranger was so exceedingly generous to someone from whom he wanted personal services to be rendered. Those all tell me that he's doing something he wants the other person to do for him and he doesn't want anyone else to know. The fact that he's being so benevolent like a 'sugar daddy' tells me that he feels guilty for having someone do what he's asking them to do. Perceived financial superiority is the smoothest of smooth power tools that predators and abusers have in their bag. For instance, an outlandish financial promise is probably the easiest way to target someone who is vulnerable; and then seduce them into being their victim. Redirecting your focus on how much better life will be once your problem is solved by this cash rather than focusing on the fact that they're taking advantage of you. Offering to pay rates that are dramatically excessive is a way of buying a clean conscious, because he's doing something that will \"\"rescue you\"\" from a crisis. The final nail in the coffin for me was that he left so abruptly and your implied instinct suggesting his reason was a lie. It sounds like he got scared or ashamed of his actions and ran out. It paints a picture that this was sex-for-money Good luck to you.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4c38a224a7b26fa45a87c6115e016aa9", "text": "Lost checks happen occasionally, and there are procedures in place (banking & business) to handle the situation. First and foremost you need to: Note: The money is legally yours, so the company is obligated to work with you here. If they refuse to cancel or reissue the check, at a minimum you'll want to contact the state government and let them know about the company's actions, if small claims court is not an option. Businesses aren't permitted to keep 'forfeited funds' in most states, instead they are required to turn them over to the government who would then return them to you when you ask for it. It's rather scummy of the government bureaucrats, because it puts them in the sole position to benefit from forgotten money, but that's the system we've given ourselves. Since you've moved overseas since the last time you worked with this company, you might need to exercise a little patience and be willing to jump through some hoops to get this resolved. Be prepared to provide them proof of who you are, and be ready to pay for extra security such as certified mail / FedEx so that you're both sure that the new check is delivered to you and only you. Last of all, learn from your mistake this time and be a little more cautious / proactive in keeping track of checks and depositing them in the future.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c27b0051ac85e22b49fa005196d2d05b", "text": "You still owe the money because there is a high probability that some other organization bough the account and assets of the failed creditor. That means they will have bought your debt. I have to assume there is language in your note that explains that they might sell your debt. But what should one do if they don't know who bought the entity? You can't pay a non-existent entity, but if you don't have an address, how can you pay the new owner of the debt? First step, is to assume there will be a new owner. A government, a company, an individual; somebody will buy that debt. Read the news and see if you can't figure out what other entity owns your note. You might have to contact them to enquire about where to send payment. Keep records of any such contact. If you put in an honest effort, but just cannot figure out who owns your note, I'd suggest continuing to make regular on-time payments. But put your payments into a new bank account that you open just for this purpose. So when the new owner of the debt does come calling, you'll have reasonable proof you were attempting to pay. You simply settle up from the special account. Any reasonable company will just take the money, and if anybody gets unreasonable and you have to appear in court, you have a paper trail indicating your attempts to honour the debt. You'd have to consult a lawyer if nobody comes asking for the money. There are probably statutes of limitation, but I wouldn't count on that ever happening.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee6e7c24edf75cb54bb9377ca4d39ee8", "text": "It's not your money. According to one article, the interest on the money could be negotiated in some cases to be yours, but I wouldn't plan on it. From MSN: According to a complaint filed by the state of Minnesota, the 37-year-old social worker received a $2.6 million payment from the state Department of Human Services that had been intended for a local hospital. Instead of immediately reporting the mistake, the woman and a friend opened investment accounts, bought jewelry, purchased four vehicles including two Land Rovers and spent $3,817 at Best Buy. Six weeks after getting the money, she called the Human Services Department to ask why the check had been sent to her, according to the complaint. When informed the payment was an error and the money had to be returned, the woman reportedly told the department to talk to her attorney and refused to respond to follow-up calls. As the prosecutor said to a St. Paul Pioneer Press reporter, there's a big difference between keeping money when you can't reasonably be expected to determine the true owner -- like that $20 bill on the street -- and keeping money when you can. The state had the pair's accounts frozen and is prosecuting for theft as well as civil charges, though the woman returned the unspent money and the property she bought. More from MSN Money A better approach to an unexplained windfall is to keep the money in a separate account while you track down the source. Who gets to keep the interest earned will be one of those things you work out with the rightful owner's attorneys. Bankrate has a similar story posted as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "719f1685a89d9fb9de133c901e3092fc", "text": "Have the check reissued to the proper payee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f1f8ff31dd3660e2605889bd69b79fc", "text": "They can go to an ATM and deposit it in to their account. The ATM does not care to read the name, and the bank does not care to verify anything if the check goes through (meaning the bank it is drawn on pays). So if nobody complains, that's it, he has your money. You would need to go to the check-writer's bank and ask for help, or look at the check-writer's cancelled check copy if you get to it. That bank can find out where it was deposited to, and then you have to go after the guy and get your money back - if it is still recoverable! - if it is a poor sod and he already blew your 5 grand, you can sue his pants off, but there are no 5 grand in them anywhere. So bad luck for you. Technically, the bank is not supposed to accept the check if the name doesn't match. At the counter, that might get a question, but as said above, there are deposit ATMs, and he could also just endorse the check to himself and sign the endorsement with some illegible scrawling, and claim that this is your signature - how would Joe the teller know? Either way, he gets the check in his account, and then he can take it out and blow it. It is legally clearly theft or fraud, and probably a federal crime, but if the guy is bankrupt, that doesn't help you much. Depending on that bank's fine-print, they might or might not cover your loss, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Better don't lose a check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e5fe8aaa425cd08ca576a07c27c3f16", "text": "You'd have to consult a lawyer in the state that the transaction took place to get a definitive answer. And also provide the details of the contract or settlement agreement. That said, if you clearly presented the check as payment (verbally or otherwise) and they accepted and cashed the check, and it cleared, you should have good legal standing to force them to finalize the payment. While they had every right to refuse the payment, and also every right to place a hold on the credit until the transaction cleared their bank, they don't have the right to simply claim the payment as a gift just because it came in a different form than they specified in the contract. Obviously this is a lesson learned on reading the fine print though. And, to be frank, it sounds like someone wants to make life difficult for you for whatever reason. And if that is the case I would refer back to my initial comment about contacting a lawyer in that state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbc64c870685d9d3c4e4e506ee4e6c5f", "text": "I do know that a blank check has all the information they need for the electronic transfer. They probably add it as a customer service to streamline future payments. Though I don't think automatically adding it makes good business sense. It is possible that the form used to submit the check included a line to added the account to the list of authorized accounts. He might have been lucky he didn't set up a recurring payment. I would check the website to see if there is a tool to remove the account info from the list of payment options. There has to be a way to edit the list so that if you change banks you can update the information, yet not keep the old accounts on the list. Talk to customer service if the website doesn't have a way of removing the account. Tell them that you have to edit the account information. And give them your info. If they balk at the change tell them that they could be committing fraud if the money is pulled from an unauthorized account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf71d5a84316745ad55ad0519e6ee5db", "text": "\"What does it mean that the bank will \"\"hold you responsible\"\"? Clearly the money won't be credited. Will you be charged a fee like an NSF cheque? Will they try to prosecute you? Is there any way to confirm whether a cashiers cheque is forged? Could you for example tell your bank that you were uncertain of the origin, and ask them to confirm it? Can you call the issuer and verify (from the serial number) that they did in fact issue a cheque for that amount with you as the payee? Even calling the bank might not help. The first verification is that the bank exists, and that the account number and name match and that they did issue a check. But that doesn't cover the situation where the person that sent you the check wasn't who they claimed to be. That is the theft that could take weeks to find.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "288030820e1d78decd491525378e6253", "text": "\"There are at least three financial institutions involved here: your insurance company's bank, the money center, and your bank. Normally, they would keep records, but given that the money center didn't even ask for your signature, \"\"normal\"\" probably doesn't apply to them. Still, you can still ask them what records they have, in addition to the other two institutions; the company's bank and your bank likely have copies of the check.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bb78deeb91af610c9616f3121904d4e", "text": "\"First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the \"\"I'll walk\"\" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2c8ee8ee3ef896bb3dc414204aa9de5", "text": "Citibank just sent me a $100 check. Here's how I got it:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f69580b17dd1e0f0938967cdcd6d0f", "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).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50f6d3b54844133f771525f6a664b3b", "text": "\"Anyone can walk into a bank, say \"\"Hi, I'm a messenger, I have an endorsed check and a filled out deposit slip for Joe Blow who has an account here, please deposit this check for him, as he is incapacitated. Straight deposit.\"\" They'll fiddle on their computer, to see if they can identify the deposit account definitively, and if they can, and the check looks legit, \"\"thanks for taking care of our customer sir.\"\" Of course, getting a balance or cashback is out of the question since you are not authenticated as the customer. I have done the same with balance transfer paperwork, in that case the bank knew the customer and the balance transfer was his usual. If the friend does not have an account there, then s/he should maybe open an account at an \"\"online bank\"\" that allows deposit by snapping photos on a phone, or phone up a branch, describe her/his situation and see if they have any options. Alternately, s/he could get a PayPal account. Or get one of those \"\"credit card swipe on your phone\"\" deals like Square or PayPal Here, which have fees very close to nil, normally cards are swiped but you can hand-enter the numbers. Those are fairly easy to get even if you have troubles with creditworthiness. S/he would need to return the check to the payer and ask the payer to pay her/him one of those ways. The payer may not be able to, e.g. if they are a large corporation. A last possibility is if the check is from a large corporation with whom s/he continues to do business with. For instance, the electric company cashiers out your account after you terminate service at your old location. But then you provision service at a new location and get a new bill, you can send their check right back to them and say \"\"Please apply this to my new account\"\". If s/he is unable to get any of those because of more serious problems like being in the country illegally, then, lawful behavior has its privileges, sorry. There are lots of unbanked people, and they pay through the nose for banking services at those ghastly check-cashing places, at least in America. I don't have a good answer for how to get a check cashed in that situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea", "text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd2da9df7baaa52029b315da91a9a2b", "text": "A) Q1) No, you beat the system, you benefit from flip side of 'use it or lose it' Q2) You need to ask, they may have a $50/week limit, or they may divide the amount you wish by remaining time in year. They may also not let you start till next enrollment period. B) Q1) No, in fact, you just lost $400 that you deposited but didn't spend. Q2) You missed the opportunity to spend an extra $1000 as well, but the loss was opportunity not pocket. Q3) Same as Q2 above, ask them. C) These accounts are not coupled. I'd change the law to do so, however, I am not a congressman.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daeffb1714d8e8a6204b007f0b5e978a", "text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c3659ad6a4c1d4d2f9e0aa0439187186", "text": "You have got it wrong. The profit or loss for smaller investor or big investor is same in percentage terms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f", "text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "21253916624b7918f6c3709e9a984172", "text": "Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2442349928571c8c1fd0025617a775", "text": "More questions! 1.) I thought the criticism of the Dow was that it's much smaller than other indexes and thus less representative of the market as a whole? 2,) When you say private investors are you talking about a few specific people? Or anyone who invests at all? Thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea17710a4fd7f5570df071d180f65a63", "text": "\"It appears that there's a confusion between the different types of average. Saying \"\"the average investor\"\" generally means the most common type of small-scale unsophisticated investor - the mode (or possibly median) investor. However, while this class of investors is numerous, each of them has assets that are quite small compared to some other types of investors; and the market average performance is determined proportionally to the amount of assets held, not to the number of holders; so the performance of large investors \"\"counts\"\" that much more. For any measure, the mode of performance can be (and often is) different from the mean performance - in this case, Dalbar is saying that the most common results are lower than the (weighed) average results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c6ab5bb3293780622eb0644d28f7890", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8322c9d7eca2e486c8147430074bb7", "text": "One implication is the added fees if you are investing in something with a trading cost or commission, such as your stock purchase. If you pay low costs to trade (e.g. with a discount broker) and don't switch your investments often, then costs overall should remain reasonable .. but always be aware of your costs and seek to minimize them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e", "text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8857170018f503149b7d0033ac8cbc9f", "text": "It's great that you have gotten the itch to learn about the stock market. There are a couple of fundamentals to understand first though. Company A has strong, growing, net earnings and minimal debt, it's trading for $100 per share. Company B has good revenue but high costs of goods and total liabilities well in excess of total assets, it's trading for $0.10 per share. There is no benefit to getting 10,000 shares or 10 shares for your $1,000. Your goal is to invest in companies that have valuable products and services run by competent management teams. Sure, the number of shares you own will dictate what percentage of the company you own, and in a number of cases, your voting power. But even a penny stock will have a market capitalization of several million dollars so voting power isn't really a concern for your $1,000 investment. There is a lot more in the three basic financial statements (Income Statement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Cash Flows) than revenue. Seasoned accountants can have a hard time parsing out where money is coming from and where it's going. In general there are obvious red flags, like a fast declining cash balance against a fast growing liabilities balance or expenses exceeding revenue. While some of these things are common among new and high growth companies, it's not the place for a new investor with a small bankroll. A micro-cap company (penny stocks are in this group) will receive rounds of financing via issuing preferred convertible shares which may include options on more shares. For a company worth $20mm a $5mm financing round can materially change the finances of a company, and will likely dilute your holdings in common stock. Small growth companies need new financing frequently to fund their growth strategies. Revenue went up, great... why? Did you open another store? Did you open another sales office? Did the revenue increase this quarter based on substantially the same operation that existed last quarter or have you increased the capacity of your operation? If you increased the capacity of your operation what was the cost of the increase and did revenue increase as expected? Can you expect revenue to continue to grow at this rate or was it a one time windfall from an unusual order? Sure, there are spectacular gains to be had in penny stocks. XYZ Pharma Research (or whatever) goes from $0.05 to $0.60 and you've turned your $1,000 in to $12,000. This is a really unlikely event... Buying penny stocks is akin to buying lottery tickets. Unless you are a high ranking employee at the company capable of making decisions, or one of the investors buying the preferred shares mentioned in point 3, or are one of the insiders of a pump and dump scam on the stock, penny common stocks are not a place to invest. One could argue that even a company insider should probably avoid buying common stock. Just to illustrate the points above, you mention: Doing some really heavy research into this stock has made me question the whole penny stock market. Based on your research what is the enterprise value of the company? What were the gross proceeds of the last financing round, how many shares were issued and were there any warrants attached? What do you perceive to be heavy research? What background do you have in finance/accounting to give weight to your ability to perform such research? Crawl. Walk. Then run. Don't kid yourself in to thinking that since you have some level of education you understand the contracts involved in enterprise finance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "951b9b0fce84b385eb005e407056b51a", "text": "Like almost all investing question: it depends! Boring companies generally appreciate slowly and as you note, pay dividends. More speculative investing can get you some capital gains, but also are more likely to tank and have you lose your original investment. The longer your time horizon, and the more risk you are willing to take, then it is reasonable to tilt towards, but not exclusively invest in, more speculative stocks. A shorter horizon, or if you have trouble sleeping at night if you lose money, or are looking for an income stream, would then tend towards the boring side. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd", "text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b", "text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf18975c984604687f3099d5817b239", "text": "Yes, you should own a diverse mix of company sizes to be well diversified. While both will probably get hit in a recession, different economies suit different sized companies very differently in many cases, and this diversity positions you best to not only not miss out in cases where small companies do better out of recessions than large, but also in environments where small companies rate of growth is larger in bull markets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7edf5d450d98f1513b4faaa546c6202e", "text": "No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb8eb76f144b9bc12d00e547c5e16c9", "text": "\"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e5e682976d0a8348340ceb02e30e1170", "text": "\"I don't know how many people \"\"a ton\"\" is, but if you are getting more than, say, 6 people who are qualified to rent, you've priced it too low. Better to ask for $1200, and have a potential tenant haggle or ask you to reduce the price than to have 6 people want it for $900. It's worth it to run a credit report, and let that help you choose. I agree with Victor, a bidding war is appropriate for a house sale, not rental apartments. You didn't mention your country, but I'd be sure to find out the local laws regarding tenant choice. You may not (depending where you are) discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation, marital status, race, or religion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d531e6c8919ffe0ead8462feb2aba3db", "text": "I wouldn't start a bidding war if I were you. Sometimes you may get potentially bad tenants who cannot find a property anywhere else offering more money just to get in a place. If you know nothing else about these people how can you guarantee they will keep paying the rent once they get in. The things you should be doing is checking the prospective tenant's employment and income status, making sure they are able to easily pay the rent. You should check their credit report to see if they have a history of bad debts. And you should be checking with their previous landlords or real estate agents to see if they caused any damages to their previous properties. You should create a form that prospective tenants can fill out providing you with all the essential information you are after. Get them so sign a statement that gives you authority to ask information about them with other people (their previous landlords/ real estate agents, and their employers). Have a system set out on how you will assess all applicants and for the information the applicants need to provide you with. Treat it as a business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63e51e8915f6b5fad4b0c2e725767892", "text": "I'm surprised by all these complicated answers. Yes @Victor, you can create a form that asks people to put down their financial information but you want to be careful and not put off potential tenants by asking for too many details. Depending on the OP's typical tenants, an extensive background and credit check may not be necessary. For example, if I have proof that someone is a graduate student at the local university, that's usually good enough for me because I am willing to bet that they will follow my contract. Bidding war doesn't sound doable, you advertise a price correct? You can only be haggled down not up. So my suggestion is to look at other rental advertisements in the area. Compare what you're offering (location, quality of house, cleanliness, amenities, etc) to the competition and price accordingly. If you're getting a flood of interest, then you're probably pricing below the average price in your area. Or you live in an area where demand is just much higher than supply, in which case you can also raise your rent.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "366e4f092dbfd5bf75a34ea777a4fe2b", "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?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b", "text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5", "text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09b3ceefba9b7ee2e3292c658572c77", "text": "\"Why go for an average two bedroom? I lived for a few years in a low-priced 4 bedroom apartment that I shared with 3 other people. I used the money I saved from living below my means to put a down payment on a duplex, which I used to \"\"live for free.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "913d6e60dc683f93657a78cf4adb14a9", "text": "Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1386cee591652b86149fce9fc4447bfa", "text": "Mixing friendship and money, whether that's loans or landlording, is risky. Often things work out, but sometimes the unexpected happens, and it doesn't. If things go wrong, are you prepared to walk away from either the friendship or the money? After you've considered that, the next question is how your roommates feel about the deal. You're looking to charge your friends $2000 to rent part of a property that, from the sound of it, they could rent much cheaper from a stranger. Maybe the market is different in Cleveland, but in my area, I'd expect to pay $2000 in rent for a place worth closer to $300,000 than $100,000. Have your roommates expressed interest in the idea, and have you discussed dollar values with them? Are you still interested if they ended up paying $1600 in rent? $1000?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e239d909ca156269088da94ad1f39999", "text": "This is almost exactally what the BK attorneys I work with have always said. If you have trouble offer a larger down payment. . . . that is the point of the down payment after all. You do sometimes have better luck with renting from individual people rather than larger corporately owned rentals. There are options out there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b35e3d4c7fd82ef6e3ecfe25533e072", "text": "I am a realtor. For our rental business, we use a service that offers a background check. It costs us about $25, and it is passed along in the form of an application fee. I suggest you contact a local real estate agent who you know does rentals. Have a conversation about what you are doing, and see if they will help process the application for you, for a fee of course. If you are truly concerned about your safety (The text you wrote can either read as true concern or sarcasm. Maybe we are really in a wild country?) It's worth even a couple hundred bucks to screen out a potential bad roommate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcb422c4ffcc892325385f9205b4d82a", "text": "\"If you or they feel uneasy about you simply paying more rent than them for equal usage, you can work out an agreement where they \"\"pay\"\" in other ways. For example, I once lived with someone that made about double what I did, and so he paid more rent than I did. In exchange, I was responsible for cleaning the kitchen. If your roommates hate cleaning then you could substitute something like running errands, cooking, or looking after plants/landscaping. If they have some specialized skills then they might be able to provide those instead (car maintenance, financial management, etc.). Of course you'll want to agree ahead of time on what the conditions of satisfaction for the task are, such as how often the kitchen will have to be cleaned and what the definition of \"\"clean\"\" is. You also can't be a jerk and make their job extra hard, such as by completely trashing the kitchen every night. Obviously it will depend on the temperament of your roommates whether or not they'll be happy with this or feel insulted being \"\"the help\"\". It worked for us because it was a task he hated and one I didn't mind, and it kept me from feeling like I was mooching off him. I would feel them out when you propose a possible rent and utilities split. If they feel like it's an unfair burden on you, but they can't afford more, then you could suggest this as a way for everyone to contribute equally. Whatever you decide to do, don't hold it over their heads that you pay more. Agree on something that everyone feels is fair, whatever that is. If you want a concession due to paying more (such as you get the garage, get to pick the art on the walls, whatever), then agree to that up front. Then accept that you've made a fair deal and they don't owe you anything beyond what you've all agreed to. It's awful to feel like you live in someone else's home and that you are getting into ever deeper debt with a close friend or significant other, and it will breed resentment. If you can't do that, then don't share an apartment with them at all. The most important thing is that everyone feels it's fair, regardless of the numbers. If you cannot get to that agreement through dollars alone, you can have them contribute to the home in other ways, such as cleaning, cooking, or performing maintenance. Just make sure that everyone truly does feel it's fair and that you are all equals.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a725e173efc1c510701db1d48cbcb5ae", "text": "The time to have looked into this is before you bought the condo, not now. You are presumably an adult. Your parents have apparently made it possible for you to have a roof of your own over your head for what is probably below rental rates (but I don't know your area, so can't say). From their point of view, they may have been doing you a favor, while giving themselves an investment opportunity. What would they be doing with that money otherwise, and at a higher or lower rate of return, and with greater or lesser risk? Where and how would you be living otherwise? More Importantly, if you can't talk to them about this you have bigger problems than money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e509229e720a3ecee8ad37dc78e1deb8", "text": "This has happened here in Austin, Texas. If the apartment doesn't have one, you can ask to have one installed and some will either do it or will do it if you pay for some of it (about the same price as installing the wall charger in a house)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08ffa93897d2f87773cf76ee356b1cca", "text": "\"In San Francisco (home of super-expensive real estate and more than a bit of marijuana use) you'll see people asking up front for \"\"first and last months' rent\"\" plus a security deposit when you move in somewhere. If someone can't come up with the cash, then it looks like this is the last month... and time to look for a new roommate. of course, it can be difficult to implement this arrangement if you've already moved in with a bunch of people, and if it's not common in an area people may balk at the money required up front, but.... it is a reliable way to deal with people flaking out on the rent money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5b18c47079bb6763c49d2b43c49a47", "text": "I found [this.](http://homeguides.sfgate.com/terminate-apartment-rental-lease-due-medical-condition-8142.html) It looks like you will need to go over the lease and look for any stipulations that allow your brother (or your parents if they cosigned) to break lease. You might want to talk to an attorney. Most leases stipulate a penalty to break lease, such as a month of rent. It seems unusual that they can charge rent until they find a new tenant, but I'm not a lawyer. Leases are an adhesion contract, meaning they are drafted by the landlord and they have most of the negotiating power. This is not inherantly bad, but it does mean that unusually harsh lease terms could be considered unconscionable, rendering the lease void. I encourage you to reread the lease and contact a lawyer. I know everyone says that, but it's good advice here. It sounds like it would be cheaper than taking this lying down and I haven't heard of many people successfully winning contract law cases pro-say. It can't hurt to get a free consultation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27ad0e1d3743243190091ec762ea034c", "text": "Yes, but how does that compare to those with multiple houses? I build homes in the Seattle area for a living and one lifestyle who own several rentals... One thing them do is use equity for their 4 homes to purchase another.. Writing off the the interest paid on the loan(s)... I'm not saying it's a deduction normal people don't use... I'm just saying that it strikes me as a deduction that the wealthiest landlords use more with better results...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3825f236f55ce6c0cc79c0570948647", "text": "If you buy a townhouse, you often are in a condominium arrangement in the US (when you're really in a rowhouse in particular). So that's a downside right away: you have to have a HOA, or at least some sort of common agreement, though it might not have formal meetings. Everyone who owns an interest in the entire group of townhouses gets some say in landscaping and such. Beyond that though, townhouses (and similarly, condominiums) are often easier to own (as they don't have as much maintenance that you have to do), but more expensive because you pay someone to do it (the landscaping, the external repairs, etc.). You likely don't have as much control over what the external looks like (because you have to be in agreement with the other owners), but you also don't have to do the work, unless your agreement is to collectively do the mowing/landscaping, which you should know in advance. I wouldn't underestimate the value of easier, by the way; it's very valuable to not have to deal with as many repairs and to be able to go a week without thinking about mowing or watering. In that sense it can be a nice transition into ownership, getting some-but-not-all of the obligations. But if that's something you really value, doing the landscaping and mowing and whatnot, that's relevant too. You can always tell your realtor to look for townhouses where the owners do some/all of the landscaping, though that opens up a different can of worms (where you rely on others to do work that they may not do, or do well). They're also somewhat noisier; you may be sharing a wall (but not necessarily, air-gap townhouses do exist) and either way will be closer to your neighbors. Does noise bother you? Conversely, are you noisy? In a college town this is probably something to pay attention to. Price wise, of course stay well within your means; if being close to the city center is important, that may lead you to buy a townhouse in that area. If being further out isn't a problem, you'll probably have similar choices in terms of price as long as you look in cheaper areas for single family homes.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c77680824f5285dad88ec81c6946359a", "text": "I asked my realtor, but she recommends to go with just one banker (her friend), and not to do any rate shopping. You need a new realtor. Anyone who would offer such advice is explicitly stating they are not advocating on your behalf. I'd do the rate shopping first. When you make an offer, once it's accepted, time becomes critical. The seller expects you to go to closing in so many days after signing the P&S. The realtor is specifically prohibited from pushing a particular lender on you. She should know better. In response to comment - Rate Shopping can be as simple as making a phone call, and having a detailed conversation. Jasper's list can be conveyed verbally. Prequalification is the next step, where a bank actually writes a letter indicating they have a high confidence you will qualify for the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec15d96bb63c191e397c5ed59f14b495", "text": "\"You can shop for a mortgage rate without actually submitting a mortgage application. Unfortunately, the U.S. Government has made it illegal for the banks to give you a \"\"good faith estimate\"\" of the mortgage cost and terms without submitting a mortgage application. On the other hand, government regulations make the \"\"good faith estimates\"\" somewhat misleading. (For one thing, they rarely are good for estimating how much money you will need to \"\"bring to the closing table\"\".) My understanding is that in the United States, multiple credit checks within a two-week period while shopping for a mortgage are combined to ding your credit rating only once. You need the following information to shop for a mortgage: A realistic \"\"appraisal value\"\". Unless your market is going up quickly, a fair purchase price is usually close enough. Your expected loan amount (which you or a banker can estimate based on your down payment and likely closing costs). Your middle credit score, for purposes of mortgage applications. (If you have a co-borrower, such as a spouse, many banks use the lower of the two persons' middle credit score). The annual property tax cost for the property, taking into account the new purchase price. The annual cost of homeowners' insurance. The annual cost of homeowners' association dues. Your minimum monthly payments on all debt. Banks tend to round up the minimum payments. Also, banks care whether any of that debt is secured by real estate. Your monthly income. Banks usually include just the amount for which you can show that you are currently in the job, with regular paychecks and tax withholding, and that you have been in similar jobs (or training for such jobs) for the last two full years. Banks usually subtract out any business losses that show up on tax returns. There are special rules for alimony and child support payments. The loan terms you want, such as a 15-year fixed rate or 30-year fixed rate. The amount of points you are willing to pay. Many banks are willing to lower your \"\"note rate\"\" by 0.125% if you pay 0.5% up-front. The pros and cons of paying points is a good topic for another question. Whether you want a so-called \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan. These loans cost less up-front, but have a higher \"\"note rate\"\". Unless you ask for a \"\"no-fee\"\" or \"\"no-closing cost\"\" loan, most banks have similar charges for things like: So the big differences are usually in: As discussed above, you can come up with a simple number for (roughly) comparing fixed-rate mortgage loan offers. Take the loan origination (and similar) fees, and divide them by the loan amount. Divide that percentage by 4. Add that percentage to the \"\"note rate\"\" for a loan with \"\"no points\"\". Use that last adjusted note rate to compare offers. (This method works because you have the choice of using up-front savings to pay \"\"points\"\" to lower the \"\"note rate\"\".) Notice that once you have your middle credit score, you can ask other lenders to estimate the information above without actually submitting another loan application. Because the mortgage market fluctuates, you should compare rates on the same morning of the same day. You might want to check with three lenders, to see if your real estate agent's friend is competitive:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44ed3942be87890d5e4010c63b93a91d", "text": "Pre-qualification is only a step above what you can do with a rate/payment calculator. They don't check your credit history and credit score; they don't ask for verification of your income; or verify that you have reported your debts correctly. They also don't guarantee the interest rate. But if you answer truthfully, and completely, and nothing else changes you have an idea of how much you can afford factoring in the down payment, and estimates of other fees, taxes and insurance. You can get pre-quaified by multiple lenders; then base your decision on rates and fees. You want to get pre-approved. They do everything to approve you. You can even lock in a rate. You want to finalize on one lender at that point because you will incur some fees getting to that point. Then knowing the maximum amount you can borrow including all the payments, taxes, insurance and fees; you can make an offer on a house. Once the contract is accepted you have a few days to get the appraisal and the final approval documents from the lender. They will only loan you the minimum of what you are pre-approved for and the appraisal minus down-payment. Also don't go with the lender recommended by the real estate agent or builder; they are probably getting a kick-back based on the amount of business they funnel to that company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7ad87a90c0c9695b48710dafc42e7a3b", "text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a4ec519d4fc1faaff8e2bf8dc3c99b5", "text": "If the base rate is USD LIBOR, you can compute this data directly on my website, which uses futures contracts and historical data to create interest rates scenarios for the calculations: http://www.mortgagecalculator3.com/ If your rate index is different, you can still create your own scenarios and check what would happen to your payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccbe018298bd47be90b814ddd26e3e0a", "text": "With rates expected to increase later this month, why is there a decreasing trend in mortgage interest rates? I am thinking lenders might be lowering prices to grab more share in the run up, but don't have much data to back that up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ab10fa53729a333b3bbac5f5281fc0", "text": "As of now in 2016, is is safe to assume that mortgage rates would/should not get back to 10%? What would the rates be in future is speculation. It depends on quite a few things, overall economy, demand / supply, liquidity in market etc ... Chances are less that rates would show a dramatic rise in near future. Does this mean that one should always buy a house ONLy when mortgage rates are low? Is it worth the wait IF the rates are high right now? Nope. House purchase decision are not solely based on interest rates. There are quite a few other aspects to consider, the housing industry, your need, etc. Although interest rate do form one of the aspect to consider specially affordability of the EMI. Is refinancing an option on the table, if I made a deal at a bad time when rates are high? This depends on the terms of current mortgage. Most would allow refinance, there may be penal charges breaking the current mortgage. Note refinance does not always mean that you would get a better rate. Many mortgages these days are on variable interest rates, this means that they can go down or go up. How can people afford 10% mortgage? Well if you buy a small cheaper [Less expensive] house you can afford a higher interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66e95cc2d4756ef1261006aef5665ad3", "text": "Social Lending may help you qualify for a loan, but doesn't necessarily provide better rates. You have to shop around to get the best rates, this is a market as any other, so don't expect one place to be consistently below the market - either the market will move, or the place will move eventually, everyone wants to earn the most for the buck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ab53e43975b4fa2a9b46afa695c6079", "text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2aa4cebbc3a1d5e04fa16b1b566baa", "text": "\"tl;dr: I agree with Pete B.'s assertion that you should continue shopping. That's not the whole story though; there are other factors that can raise your rate, and affect your closing costs. The published rate is typically the best rate you can get. Here are some other factors that can raise your rate: You should have received a loan estimate which will itemize the fees you will pay. On that document you will see if you are paying a price to \"\"buy down\"\" the rate, and all the other fees. How are you calculating the 2.5%? Note that some fees are fixed. An appraisal on a $40K home may cost the same as an appraisal for a $400K home. If you add up the total closing costs and view it as a percentage of the loan, the smaller loan may have a higher percentage than the larger loan, even though the total cost of the smaller loan is less.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f225d65a2aee4618d33e468bb0ff6024", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dae929d5d91dec429b8b506947c43c09", "text": "Applying for a mortgage is a bit of paperwork, but not too bad of an experience. Rates are pretty tight, if one lender were more that 1/4% lower than another, they'd be inundated with applications. Above a certain credit score, you get the 'best' rate, a search will show you the rates offered in your area. If you are a first time buyer, there are mortgages that might benefit you. If you are a vet (for non-native English readers, a veteran who served in the US armed forces, not a veterinarian, who is an animal doctor) there are mortgages that offer low-to-no down payment with attractive rates. Yes, avoid PMI, it's a crazy penalty on your overall expense of home purchase. If banks qualify you for different amounts, it shouldn't be a huge difference, a few percent variation. But, the standard ratios are pretty liberal even today, and getting the most you'd qualify for is probably too much. Using the standard 28/36% ratios, a bank will qualify you for 4X your income as a loan. e.g you make $50K, they'll lend you $200K. This is a bit too much in my opinion. If you come up short, you are really looking to borrow too much, and should probably wait. If you owe a bit on loans, it should squeeze in between those two ratios, 28/36. But I wouldn't borrow on a credit line to add to the purchase, that's asking for trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1053ceda7ea5537d3cd9d4d5efc044", "text": "First of all, think of anyone you know in your circle locally who may have gotten a mortgage recently. Ask him, her, or them for a recommendation on what brokers they found helpful and most of all priced competitively. Second of all, you may consider asking a real estate agent. Note that this is generally discouraged because agents sometimes (and sometimes justifiably) get a bad reputation for doing anything to get themselves the highest commission possible, and so folks want to keep the lender from knowing the agent. Yet if you have a reputable, trustworthy agent, he or she can point you to a reputable, trustworthy broker who has been quoting your agent's other clients great rates. Third of all, make sure to check out the rates at places you might not expect - for example, any credit unions you or your spouse might have access to. Credit unions often offer very competitive rates and fees. After you have 2-3 brokers lined up, visit them all within a short amount of time (edit courtesy of the below comments, which show that 2 weeks has been quoted but that it may be less). The reason to visit them close together is that in the pre-approval process you will be getting your credit hard pulled, which means that your score will be dinged a bit. Visiting them all close together tells the bureaus to count all the hits as one new potential credit line instead of a couple or several, and so your score gets dinged less. Ask about rates, fees (they are required by law to give you what is called a Good Faith Estimate of their final fees), if pre-payment of the loan is allowed (required to re-finance or for paying off early), alternative schedules (such as bi-weekly or what a 20 year mortgage rate might be), the amortization schedule for your preferred loan, and ask for references from past clients. Pick a broker not only who has the best rates but also who appears able to be responsive if you need something quickly in order to close on a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e5cd4b3c794252efe76f96afc3b38b5", "text": "In my opinion, the simplest way to run these numbers is to first assume you are borrowing the full amount, including the points, if any. They run a spreadsheet, and while using the new rate, apply your full current payment each month. Then compare balances at month 48. You'll find it easy to calculate the breakeven. In the case of the negative points, it's immediate. For higher points, the B/E is later but then you are further ahead each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9300c42e6ddab9c79fd61d14d4cb061", "text": "You should also be aware that there are banks that do business in the US that do not deal with Fannie Mae, and thus are not subject to the rules about conforming loans. Here is an example of a well-known bank that lists two sets of rates, with the second being for loans of $750,000 or more (meaning the first covers everything up to that) https://home.ingdirect.com/orange-mortgage/rates", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63d4ae49051ee9037c47e3161cb81f3a", "text": "I am sorry for your troubles, but impressed with your problem solving skills. Keep going, things will get better. Your best hope is to find a place that does manual underwriting. If they do computer generated stuff, then you will be kicked for sure. If you can show 20% down, and have some savings, and have some history of paying bills, then you might be approved. Here in Florida, RP Funding still does manual underwriting. Another one that is mentioned is Church Hill mortgage. Also you might check with local credit unions. Of course your best bet to be approved is to be open and state upfront the challenges. You have to find someone that has the ability to think, has the ability to see passed the challenges, and has the authority to do so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e", "text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9870fc6c5cb390e8cbeca543fbef2f65", "text": "Mortgage rates generally consist of two factors: The risk premium is relatively constant for a particular individual / house combination, so most of the changes in your mortgage rate will be associated with changes in the price of money in the world economy at large. Interest rates in the overall economy are usually tied to an interest rate called the Federal Funds rate. The Federal Reserve manipulates the federal funds rate by buying and/or selling bonds until the rate is something they like. So you can usually expect your interest rate to rise or fall depending on the policies of the Federal Reserve. You can predict this in a couple of ways: The way they have described their plans recently indicates that will keep interest rates low for an extended period of time - probably through 2014 or so - and they hope to keep inflation around 2%. Unless inflation is significantly more than 2% between now and then, they are extremely unlikely to change that plan. As such, you should probably not expect mortgage interest rates in general to change more than infinitesimally small amounts until 2014ish. Worry more about your credit score.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "93860154dd97e77e09750e016a2bb41c", "text": "\"Short answer: No. Being connected is very helpful and there is no consequence by securities regulators against the investor by figuring out how to acquire pre-IPO stock. Long answer: Yes, you generally have to be an \"\"Accredited Investor\"\" which basically means you EARN over $200,000/yr yourself (or $300,000 joint) and have been doing so for several years and expect to continue doing so OR have at least 1 million dollars of net worth ( this is joint worth with you and spouse). The Securities Exchange Commission and FINRA have put a lot of effort into keeping most classes of people away from a long list of investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d78280a06f17c17e2f6b70609018051", "text": "\"No you don't have to be super-rich. But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest? The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever). You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package. There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors. Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The \"\"crime\"\" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you. Instead, the \"\"crime\"\" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning. To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic. The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market. Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b721bf929645a32770ca5320a4f2b5b7", "text": "There are a couple of ways to buy into a private company. First, the company can use equity crowd funding (approved under the JOBS act, you don't need to be an accredited investor for this). The offering can be within one state (i.e. Intrastate offerings) which don't have the same SEC regulations but will be governed by state law. Small companies (small assets, under $1 million) can be made under Regulation D, Rule 504. For assets under $5 million, there is Rule 505, which allows a limited number of non-accredited investors. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 504 and 505 issues. Rule 506 issues are common, and it does allow a few non-accredited investors (I think 35), but non-accredited investors have to be given lots of disclosure, so often companies use a Rule 506 issue but only for accredited investors.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9a39855dd76f6d71894d271408f6887b", "text": "Yes. There are exceptions under the pre-JOBS laws to allow unaccredited investors (off the top of my head I don't remember the limit, but 35 sounds right). However, it increases the amount of information the company has to give to those investors. Post-JOBS you're allowed to have up to 500 unaccredited investors and as far as I know, it doesn't really change the information the company has to give.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff8f21e99d612524de391740ba0928c", "text": "Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96387f55bb095db0193bdbe95e7499a8", "text": "\"The \"\"coin flip\"\" argument made in the article is absurd. My old boss had a saying, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get.\"\" He came from nothing, worked maniacally to become an Olympian, and later in life became a multi-millionaire. This is a common story among self-made people. I DO think that the rich have significant advantages: education, contact networks, access to startup capital, etc. These are very helpful, but don't assure success. Their lack is not insurmountable by the ambitious. I also think those advantages have expanded in recent years. Monetary policy has resulted in a large pool of investable funds being made available to to the financial sector, who earn high incomes with rent-seeking tactics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "899c9572b9f6b04a758c21d1e283dab3", "text": "\"Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply \"\"airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways.\"\" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs: 1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by \"\"the public\"\". 2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to \"\"cash out\"\". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to \"\"accredited investors\"\". 3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD. Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out. It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future. The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management. If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7967202b7921329aed481174711eebb7", "text": "Turukawa's answer is quite good, and for your own specific situation, you might begin by being sceptical about what you are getting for investing a few thousand dollars. With the exception of Paul Graham's Y-Combinator, there are very few opportunities to invest at that type of level, and Y-Combinator provides a lot of other assistance besides their modest initial investment. I can tell from your post that you think like an investor. It is highly unlikely that the entrepreneurial programmers that you will be backing will be wired that way. From the modest amount that you are investing, you are unlikely to be the lead investor in this opportunity. If you are interested in proceeding, simply stick along for the ride, examining the terms and documents that more significant investors will be demanding. Remain positive and supportive, but simply wait to sign on the dotted line until others have done the heavy lifting. For more insights into startups themselves, see Paul Graham's essays at www.paulgraham.com. He's the real deal, and his recent essays will provide you with current insights about software startups. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2f5def027a81c2bd2a43665ac808a3c", "text": "It depends a large part on your broker's relationship with the issuing bank how early you can participate in the IPO round. But the nature of the stock market means the hotter the stock and the closer to the market (away from the issuing bank) you have to buy the higher the price you'll pay. The stock market is a secondary market, meaning the only things for sale are shares already owned by someone. As a result, for a hot stock the individual investor will have to wait for another investor (not the issuing bank) to trade (sell) the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad8c31cf38ded9ae11e02d78b881164", "text": "\"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40f7111b9718afc316b8ae5b88bb84c", "text": "\"Previous answers have done a great job with the \"\"Should I invest?\"\" question. One thing you may be overlooking is the question \"\"Am I allowed to invest?\"\" For most offerings of stock in a startup, investors are required to be accredited by the SEC's definition. See this helpful quora post for more information on requirements to invest in startups. To be honest, if a startup is looking for investors to put in \"\"a few thousand dollars\"\" each, this would raise my alarm bells. The cost and hassle of the paperwork to (legitimately) issue shares in that small of number would lead me just to use a credit card to keep me going until I was able to raise a larger amount of capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0e031045feb0f059b8f4d20233b164", "text": "\"We just got in an argument in another thread, and I don't necessarily want to continue it, but was browsing your comments and saw this. I can say from personal experience (I have several high net worth clients) that this isn't true. The rich do the opposite of leave their money laying around. They invest it to make more money. They buy office buildings, fund new companies, buy up stocks, and drive investment in general. Someone has to do these things. Office buildings can't just be owned by \"\"the people\"\". Someone with a ton of money has to come along and fund them. For example, one of my friends knows Elon Musk (founder of Pay-Pal, Tesla Motors, Solar City, and Space X). He is *worth* $2 billion, but was living on other people's couches (including my friend's) after he sold Pay-Pal because he had just poured all of his cash into starting Tesla Motors. He was a billionaire without a penny to his name (well I'm sure he had a little cash lying around, but was essentially asset rich, cash broke). THAT is what most ultra rich people are like. They invest their money, they don't just horde it away in a savings account. The things people like Musk do create jobs and sometimes entire industries (or three entire industries in his case). I'm by no means arguing that this is right or wrong, but to say rich people just have money lying around is absurd. You don't get rich by saving money in the bank, you get rich by spending it. I'm in my early 20's, but already own multiple apartment buildings. I'm not rich yet and am in the same boat as Musk was. I have tons of assets, but almost no cash I can spend. However, you bet my efforts are creating jobs. I'm employing people to renovate and people to repair and maintain these buildings. I'm helping stop the bleeding in the real estate market, but, according to the narrative, I'm evil because my \"\"income\"\" is six figures.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f130cbf649f1927e057d58350102db01", "text": "You can apply for a position with any company you like, whether or not you are a shareholder. However, owning shares in a company, even lots of shares in a company, does not entitle you to having them even look at your resume for any job, let alone the CEO position. You generally cannot buy your way into a job. The hiring team, if they are doing their job correctly, will only hire you if you are qualified for the job, not based on what your investments are. Stockholders get a vote at the shareholders' meeting and a portion of the profits (dividend), and that's about it. They usually don't even get a discount on products, let alone a job. Of course, if you own a significant percentage of the stock, you can influence the selections to the board of directors. With enough friends on the board, you could theoretically get yourself in the CEO position that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fbbb410b7ff1fb7eba4f60c84daad3f", "text": "There are several problems with your reasoning: if I buy one share of GOOGLE now for $830, I could have $860 within the end of tonight -- totally possible and maybe even likely. You can do the same thing with 1,000,000 shares of google, and it's just as likely to go down as go up. if I were to invest $1,000.00 in gold to have $1,000.00 worth of gold, it's no different than keeping $1,000.00 in cash It's VERY different. Gold can be just as volatile as stocks, so it certainly is different as just keeping it in cash. Benefits of a larger portfolio:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4422108668aabeccfe4f5110d9c5ce8f", "text": "\"I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an \"\"emergency\"\" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b31565f39a22a3c38bad6baeab2848a1", "text": "You can say it's a bad proxy but practically all the richest people have their money tied up in equities, and it would be foolish for them not to. You have to include that somehow. Net worth is not just liquid assets", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ab9f9eb83e88b5b691d94aa1f7100e", "text": "Many CEOs I have heard of earn a lot more than 200k. In fact a lot earn more than 1M and then get bonuses as well. Many wealthy people increase there wealth by investing in property, the stock market, businesses and other assets that will produce them good capital growth. Oh yeh, and luck usually has very little to do with their success.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b20d02dcab564c4a982b62fa79932712", "text": "\"There's a concept in retail called a \"\"loss leader\"\", and essentially it means that a store will sell an item intentionally at a loss as a way of bringing in business in the hope that while consumers are in the store taking advantage of the discounted item, they'll make other purchases to make up for the loss and generate an overall profit. Many times it only makes sense to carry items that enhance the value of something else the store sells. Stores pay big money to study consumer behaviors and preferences in order to understand what items are natural fits for each other and the best ways to market them. A good example of what you're talking about is the fact that many grocery stores carry private label products that sell for higher margins, and they'll stock them alongside the name brands that cost much more. As a consequence (and since consumers often don't see a qualitative difference between store brands and name brands much of the time to rationalize spending more), the store's own brands sell better. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d4a6faeab3d0f592026d01218100e85", "text": "They may stock items that frame the various price points. Of course they risk having the items go stale before they are sold. You also have situations where the store will advertise an item, but end up taking a loss on that sale because it will bring people in, and they will make other purchases. Determining what to stock, how to display it, and how to advertise it involves both math and psychology.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e040d4fa7d15885677dbedd01fb1c4f2", "text": "\"That happens all the time. The best situation for this to happen is when you have several products, each a bit better and a bit more expensive than the other, and you add a new product which is the cheapest. That gets people into the store to look at the cheapest product, and then you show the the next more expensive which is so much better for only a little more money, and the next more expensive which is again so much better... You might not sell any of the cheapest product but it helps you sell the others. Also happens the other way round: You add a really expensive item, unaffordable for most customers, that is really, really nice. Then customers look at it and you show them that for half the price they can have something that is almost as nice. The expensive product increases the amount that customers think is \"\"the right price\"\" for that kind of product. A customer might think that $2,000 for a diamond ring is an awful lot of money, but if you show them another ring for $5,000 then suddenly the $2,000 doesn't look that expensive anymore. And if it is almost as nice as the $5,000 ring, you sell a lot of rings for $2,000 because you had the more expensive ring in the store.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b0d4b844cd44072e06f36fe020a4c3b", "text": "Use of this is demonstrated in this video: https://youtu.be/Ip5jG3djdyk Stocking products that you have no intention of selling can be used to make other products look more appealing by comparison. It's more psychological than anything but it isn't an uncommon practice.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f3cdb856877006ce8e902213aa1551b6", "text": "The more the stock is worth, the more it needs to rise to make a profit. You can buy some stock from Google or amazon, but that's about all the stock you'd have... Start small with companies you know and trust that have an upward trend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d6127635902b6b8898bd3c380982844", "text": "Hardly anyone retail shops on eBay, this is visible just on the [Google trends compared to the two other competitors](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&amp;q=amazon,ebay,walmart) mentioned here. Notice, compared to those two, eBay has basically no holiday season bump? It's peak was in December 2007 and since then Amazon's been eating it's lunch and even Walmart gained a little ground. As eBay transitioned from fleamarket to Chinese junk retailer, to compete with Amazon, one major thing it lost out on was reviews. Every item from every merchant is it's own listing with no history (beyond merchant reputation). Add onto that, the fact you're not dealing with a single entity (like Amazon) and it's a bust. That's why, even if I'm not intending on buying it from Amazon, I browse it to see the reputation of the product. Oftentimes, I buy a competitor's product from there. Even Walmart has it. Ebay has little to none of that - essentially buying blind. Price-matching a tiny subset of product won't fix shit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5541e4cd88d0abca3d687a5388e3db", "text": "\"Yes, this is common and in some cases may be required. They may use it for marketing at some level, but they also use it for risk management in deciding, for example, how much margin to offer and whether to approve access to \"\"riskier\"\" products like stock options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8172047cbc0a97e12cece3caa9402a5f", "text": "I'm not specifically referring to forced acceptance of returns. You can produce a product that's excellent with minimal quality issues, but it doesn't mean that Costco won't squeeze you out on other things. In the end it's a numbers game, and the vendor will always lose when the performance of their product begins to drop, regardless of quality issues. That's when the large retailers start squeezing you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af8936f2118d658d9f57e27f1caf14bd", "text": "\"No. Some grocery stores may discount specific products based on inventory to drive sales using \"\"loss leaders\"\" where the product is intentionally priced as a loss for the business. While commodity futures may impact some prices, I'm not sure one can easily extract the changes solely due to futures shifts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f4d2c18724cec934b766c5916f605db", "text": "No, but the damage to the quality/reputation of the brand can be very real. Amazon absolutely has an inventory problem where they are turning a blind eye to counterfeit goods. This problem is exacerbated by their commingling of inventory, where they can get the same item from multiple suppliers - where some of the goods are genuine and some are counterfeits and they are mixed together. If the good being bought is listed on Amazon as genuine, but the consumer is shipped a low-quality fake, then it is reasonable for the customer to assume the quality of the good is low as they assume Amazon would not ship a counterfeit. In Birkenstock's case, they are alleging that very thing happened. Amazon was allegedly selling counterfeits that they got from other sources than directly from Birkenstock [via the authorized seller option], and then were shipping those to customers - causing damage to the Birkenstock brand. Though, if that were true, I would expect Birkenstock to sue Amazon and not simply badmouth them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1aa637b5b63740f6cd7b5aaee978664", "text": "\"Your statement - \"\"not practical\"\" - presumes that the primary goal of having the store is to allow the store to thrive. But if you subscribe to the idea that stores and other companies are just organizations of people, that presumption is false we humans form social structures that benefit people who live within the social structures - towns, cities, teams, companies, political parties. the success of \"\"the store\"\" or the company or the team, or the \"\"city\"\", is not the primary goal. The success of the people ought to be the primary goal. Example: hospitals weren't originally conceived to make money and grow. They were conceived to aid people who were sick. These days hospitals make a LOT OF MONEY , despite being classified as nonprofit institutions in the USA. As a result we have bad medical practice - over prescription of opioids, over use of surgeries, over-use of diagnostic tests, etc., - all of which benefits the hospital but not the patients. It's not always a clear line - look at the real jobs vs environment issues in mining or fracking. But the balance we have struck now, gives great profits to the companies (profits are at record highs) while income inequality is also at record highs. How is that sensible or sustainable. Or moral? My key point here is that your statement that \"\"it's not practical for the store\"\" is misguided. The store's well being cannot be the primary goal of commerce. We need to place a higher priority on benefiting people. (Broadly framed - not just owners of the store)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6bf1a41c65a279d78640dbbd860e6d1", "text": "While this may be true for certain stores, it isn't true across the board. An ex worked at a high-end clothing store and they did in fact pack up everything that didn't sell during that season and ship it to the outlets. This was also the case for many of the other high-end stores.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61656ef65c60b5d20fc3816ca81bd52d", "text": "I have heard through the grapevine that in your contract with Costco, the manufacturer has to GUARANTEE that all their products will sell. So everything on the shelves is literally sold already, even if nobody buys it. Allegedly it put many businesses out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bd6dba8603aef66808526c01453503b", "text": "How can you correlate a company stock's performance with overall market performance. No you can't. There is no simple magic formulae that will result in profits. There are quite a few statistical algorithms that specialists have built, that work most of the times. But they are incorrect most of the times as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad0597371c8ffbb613e4cbaa68b67e86", "text": "You have no clue what you are talking about! It's all natural progress of Retail. When Sears sent its first catalogs, it killed most rural stores. When Mr. Goldman invented the shopping cart, and Supermarkets were possible, it killed most grocery stores. When department stores started, they killed most specialty stores. When Amazon started, and on-line shopping, it killed all book stores and many other stores. When 3D printers get fast and more versatile, the made-to-order will kill Amazon. Etc, etc, etc...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4dbeca797759a3013a30662a303baae", "text": "\"I agree, and would add that the Sears website is the worst \"\"major retailer\"\" I've shopped online. They can't track stock based on what is sold. Many of their products are sold by shady 3rd parties, and the search results are almost useless.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e11be6d386ddb060699e6a8cf39036c", "text": "retail has been in a slump for quite a few years now. these companies are short on cash, cut costs, take on debt to pay manufacturers and fund operating costs, products do not sell, short on cash, cut costs, take on debt again etc go through this cycle enough times everyone starts to look for exits - banks want to get paid on the loans and retailers want to lower the debt service. this usually ends up at the door step of a PE shop these retailers are usually over levered by the time PE ships are involved. PE adds its own tranches of debt and off to the races the retailers go many retailers are figuring out consumers just are not interested in buying from them, no cash, cut costs, cannot service debt, Ch 11, likely end up on the doorsteps of another PE shop", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5e9d8c836e622e966667ee335b6d668", "text": "I don't think retail cares so much about being taken for a few bps here and there, but more so about the insane volatility that is the new normal in markets. This vol., which in many cases can be tracked back to HFT, has had a negative feedback loop that resulted in lower volumes across the board. I don't think retail cares about a few bps here and there, but if the entire system is based on trust in market efficiency, and computers make them less efficient by purposefully manipulating the system, retail might just not chose to play any more. Think of it like baseball vs. football. Football has salary caps, and, as such, all teams have a fair shot at winning every year, baseball doesn't, and a few teams with the biggest budgets consistently win year over year. Yeah, it's great if you're a Yankees, Red Sox, Giants or Phillies fan, but many other cities in the country don't care about baseball much anymore and favor football. Look at viewership stats by market over time. HFT is the same way, it's great if you have the money to compete in that system, but by destroying the integrity of the system itself, many participants just stop caring as much and go elsewhere...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e62b9944102afc036fd4a96772aab1c", "text": "I don't think there's a conclusive answer to your question, but I have a real world example for you. I was in a similar situation for almost 6 years (I was the friend, but also the one with the highest pay). I rented a house, my name on everything. I made a separate contract with both my friend and his GF and they both rented a room from me. I looked up the total m2 of the house and divided the rent by that number. Multiplied by room sizes I knew what everyone had to pay for their personal space, I simply divided the rest by 3 to find the remainder of everyone's rent. I don't know the numbers anymore, but here's an example: house = 150 m2 room 1 = 10 m2 room 2 = 15 m2 room 3 = 25 m2 shared space = 100 m2 rent = 800,- This gives 5.33 per m2 The shared space is worth 533.33 Divided by 3 is 177.77, So the total rent for each room is: room 1 = 10*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 231 room 2 = 15*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 258 room 3 = 25*5.33 + 177.77 ≈ 311 We divided the rest of the costs (gas, power, water, etc...) evenly. This was fair in our case, because the rent was directly tied to the size of the rooms. The only thing we had left to do was give the poorest person the smallest room.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bad177efac3dfd6b41b35d802005ab10", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b81e74bb215f0e6fac9214327575e07", "text": "\"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8356bc721c1581f1b340b68f809cfef6", "text": "You can buy from any of the well known jewelry shops. Or you can even buy it from banks. For a 24carat gold purchase, you would normally also get a certificate attesting the quality of the gold item. Also while selling your gold, you can sell to above mentioned jewellers or any decent jeweller as a matter of fact.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dd8e5ca4888ff871a3b76ce481bb3bd5", "text": "\"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b104c80932c4755082359a38997c64f1", "text": "You will need a lot of cash because all the gold that you will buy will be capitalized later. You must invest but you must use your head when you do it. It is one of the most profitable businesses but when you start it you should be prepared to pay the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ea028386d7b77f54bba0eb3c5e18b8c", "text": "With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53797b151ae0daf43edf5e83c4fc64bd", "text": "The problem I have with gold is that it's only worth what someone will pay you for it. To a degree that's true with any equity, but with a company there are other capital resources etc that provide a base value for the company, and generally a business model that generates income. Gold just sits there. it doesn't make products, it doesn't perform services, you can't eat it, and the main people making money off of it are the folks charging a not insubstantial commission to sell it to you, or buy it back. Sure it's used in small quantities for things like plating electrical contacts, dental work, shielding etc. But Industrial uses account for only 10% of consumption. Mostly it's just hoarded, either in the form of Jewelry (50%) or 'investment' (bullion/coins) 40%. Its value derives largely from rarity and other than the last few years, there's no track record of steady growth over time like the stock market or real-estate. Just look at what gold prices did between 10 to 30 years ago, I'm not sure it came anywhere near close to keeping pace with inflation during that time. If you look at the chart, you see a steady price until the US went off the gold standard in 1971, and rules regarding ownership and trading of gold were relaxed. There was a brief run up for a few years after that as the market 'found its level' as it were, and you really need to look from about 74 forward (which it experienced its first 'test' and demonstration of a 'supporting' price around 400/oz inflation adjusted. Then the price fluctuated largely between 800 to 400 per ounce (adjusted for inflation) for the next 30 years. (Other than a brief sympathetic 'Silver Tuesday' spike due to the Hunt Brothers manipulation of silver prices in 1980.) Not sure if there is any causality, but it is interesting to note that the recent 'runup' in price starts in 2000 at almost the same time the last country (the Swiss) went off the 'gold standard' and gold was no longer tied to any currency (or vise versa) If you bought in '75 as a hedge against inflation, you were DOWN, as much as 50% during much of the next 33 years. If you managed to buy at a 'low' the couple of times that gold was going down and found support around 400/oz (adjusted) then you were on average up slightly as much as a little over 50% (throwing out silver Tuesday) but then from about '98 through '05 had barely broken even. I personally view 'investments' in gold at this time as a speculation. Look at the history below, and ask yourself if buying today would more likely end up as buying in 1972 or 1975? (or gods forbid, 1980) Would you be taking advantage of a buying opportunity, or piling onto a bubble and end up buying at the high? Note from Joe - The article Demand and Supply adds to the discussion, and supports Chuck's answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab6cc8d9826ecf75e8add750017c25d1", "text": "\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85297a8d9bd54e5aa6f686aafb566160", "text": "\"You can find gold historical prices on the kitco site. See the \"\"View Data\"\" button.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58aaa60f7b423dfdbf5740a3a3153ced", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22b4698b41a63d0eb71f71fefe874e94", "text": "Gold is not legal tender. I can't walk into Walmart and buy groceries with 1/20 ounce of gold. I can't buy a TV or car with gold. And you can't *buy* money--that's not how it works. I can sell a barrel of oil or a whatever of copper in any currency, but that doesn't make either of them currencies in and of themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2865984a64db25a71c7b3f2c57f1afc5", "text": "\"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6739f7b487afcbf39fc92d7f5b1b0c3d", "text": "I agree that there is no reliable way to buy gold for less than spot, no more than there is for any other commodity. However, you can buy many things below market from motivated sellers. That is why you see so many stores buying gold now. It will be hard to find such sellers now with the saturation of buyers, but if you keep an eye on private sales and auctions you may be able to pick up something others miss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edf4fba292caeb83937280fef7ca1934", "text": "\"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1b4d9b1b9d014f7d6ce32132da3509", "text": "You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8f1abe5d6acad4a5681cbee71690432", "text": "\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257a8f93e0de0801f8797cea3e791f6e", "text": "Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "615805aad595c950ff380c27d30f25b0", "text": "\"With all due respect to economics everywhere and the armchair economist. I think they overlook one very basic fact. The alternative to buying popcorn at the cinema is buying it cheaper at the store, or making your own and bringing it to the cinema. Cinemagoing is something you tend to do with a date (and sometimes your friends) and who wants to look cheap to their date (and perhaps their spouse/friends) bringing popcorn to the cinema? This \"\"cheapo-gentlemens\"\" effect together with convenience is probably the reason why popcorn can remain so expensive at cinemas.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7832dedd1fee46484365b4dc17bf4aa4", "text": "There are several reasons why credit cards are popular in the US: On the other hand, debit cards do not have any of these going for them. A debit card doesn't make much money for the bank unless you overdraw or something, so banks don't have incentive to push you to use them as much. As a result they don't offer rewards other benefits. Some people say the ability to spend more than you have is a downside of a credit card. But it's really an upside. The behavior of doing that when it isn't needed is bad, but that's not the card's fault, it's the users'. You can get a credit card with a very small limit if this is an issue for you. The question I find interesting is why debit cards are more popular in your home country. I can't think of any advantage they offer besides free cash back. But most people in the US don't use cash much either. I have to think in your home country the banks have a different revenue model or perhaps your country isn't as eager to offer tons of easy credit to everyone as the US is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9190beab9ebe5a6f2c8fb4667cf8972", "text": "For me, it is mostly for the fraud protection. If I have a debit card and someone makes a fraudulent charge the money is removed from my bank account. From my understanding, I can then file a fraud complaint with the bank to recover my money. However, for some period of time, the money is missing from my bank account. I've heard conflicting stories of money being returned quickly while the complaint is undergoing investigation as well as money being tied up for several days/weeks. It may depend on the bank. With a credit card, it is the banks money that is tied up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "790bd1aa9a78f54d3bd90c4c236277fd", "text": "\"There are two things I can think of that might be different in other countries: Until 2013, American Express, Visa and MasterCard prevented businesses from charging extra for credit card usage, and credit card surcharges still illegal in several states. Since credit card companies add a surcharge to credit card purchases, and merchants can't pass that onto credit card users, they just make everyone pay extra instead. Since everyone gets charged the credit card surcharge, you might as well use a credit card and recoup some of that via \"\"rewards\"\" points. Almost all credit cards here have grace periods, where you won't be charged interest if you pay back your loans in full within some period of time (at least 21 days). This makes credit cards attractive to people who don't need a loan, but like the convenience that credit cards provide (not carrying cash, extra insurance, better fraud protection). Apparently grace periods aren't required by law here, so this might be common in other countries as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f2840a9a87b9e94321c55c5533ece66", "text": "Your question is based on a false premise. Debit cards are more popular in the US than credit cards are. Indeed it seems to be the non-US part of the world that is big in credit cards. See here for example", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee7f43ee585e6ce72415a9fbc96d715f", "text": "\"Personally, I use my credit cards for everything because I get reward points (or, cash back, depending on the card), and I build credit history. I've had credit cards since I was 18 (now 22), and my credit score is in the higher end 700s which I'm told is pretty good for my age. Additionally, since I put my rent and large purchases on my credit card, I have a lot of reward points. I use these to buy things I wouldn't normally buy to try them out and see if they bring any value into my life. If not, I didn't really lose anything, but I have found value in some of those things. I realize most of this is gamification and consumerism at play, but getting that extra little thing once in a while for \"\"free\"\" which is pretty nice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e", "text": "", "title": "" }, { "docid": "593a607429bbea53a8c549008657a60f", "text": "\"The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of \"\"living on credit\"\" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with \"\"Pre-Approved Deals\"\" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f5ccd002c0ea3835d23221194ca816", "text": "Credit card fraud protection (by law), credit card cash back programs (provided by most CC issuers), and debit card fees (commonly imposed by the merchant). The crux is that with CC transactions, a small percentage is remitted to the issuing bank. Since the banks are already making money hand over fist on CC's, they incentivize people to use them. CC security is also lax because the merchant is responsible for fraudulent charges instead of the bank. If the merchant fails to check a signature, they are held liable for all charges if the card holder reports a fraudulent transaction.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "74a87d751a1ab73ea40a716c13379be4", "text": "People have credit cards for various reasons depending upon their personal situation and uses You don't need to have a Credit Card if you don't have a reason to. But most people do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2786cbf4423fa30dc7a0d1cbed87a1a5", "text": "If you are in the U.S., without credit cards, you probably don't have a credit history. Without a credit history, you won't be able to get a loan/mortgage, and even if you do, you'll get it on very unfavorable terms. Depending on where you live you might even have great difficulty renting an apartment. So, the most important reason to have credit cards is to have a good credit score. People have already listed other advantages of having credit cards, but another thing that wasn't mentioned is fraud protection. Credit cards are better protected against fraud than debit cards. You probably shouldn't use debit cards online unless you must. Also, without a credit card or credit history, some simple and important liberties like renting a car while you are travelling might be denied to you. So, in conclusion, it's bizarre, but in modern America you need credit cards, and you need them bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b54ee0f2d50fba4547d1c2c497b452", "text": "A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "201215f5a28ef482514c43dc2665a62c", "text": "Early on, one might not be able to get credit for their business. For convenience, and the card perks, it makes sense to use the personal card. But for sake of a clean paper trail, I'd choose 1 card and use it exclusively, 100% for the business. Not one card here, one card there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d2f8e0cbddaab8964e4cd5e7221ccf6", "text": "You must understand that not everyone has or can get credit cards. Consider that those who are in the the lowest 20-30% of income tend to have fewer credit cards (or none), and lower credit debt, although some have quite high credit card debt relative to their income. So you really aren't comparing the same demographics (the population of all income earners, used to calculate average income, and the population of all credit card debt holders, are not the same groups of people). Once you remove those folks from consideration, then credit card usage may still average higher, but accept that it is unusual for people making less than $20K-30K/year to have much credit card debt. You must understand that wealth and income are two very different (although related) concepts. One must note that there are millions of people in the U.S. who have wealth; they have net assets of over $1M (excluding their homes). Many of those folks have assets greatly exceeding $1M. And although it might seem foolish to carry a large balance on their credit cards, they may have quite low interest rates, and simply find it simpler and more convenient to use credit cards in lieu of personal loans. Suppose you have $2M in net assets, and want to buy a classic car or a diamond necklace. Charging $30K and carrying the balance until a dividend check arrives may make sense. Understand also that not everyone makes the same choices, or good choices. Carrying a credit card balance may appear like a poor choice, especially when you are not wealthy, or have lower income. But suppose you have a high credit limit across several cards, and you need to handle a short-term financial challenge (car repair, layoff, medical bills, etc). You might use the credit card to pay for that purchase, essentially financing an extraordinary event over a longer period of time. And although having a balance of more than 5-10% of your monthly income may seem foolish to some, it may make sense to others. And some people choose to carry balances of 50% to 100% of their credit limit. Others realize that keeping their credit utilization below 30%, 20%, or 10% of the credit limit is a better plan (both interest rate and risk wise).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd1e20b22fa6c68b8901990ba6ef6ff1", "text": "One thing that has not been pointed out as a disadvantage of using Credit Cards: people tend to spend more. You can see This Study, and this one, plus about 500 others. On average people tend to spend about 17% more with credit cards then with cash. This amount dwarphs any perks one gets by having a credit card. The safest way to use one is to only use them for purchases where you cannot make a decision to spend more. One example would be for utility bills (that don't charge a fee) or at the gas pump. Using them at Amazon might have you upgrade your purchase or add some extra items. Using them at restaurants might encourage you to order an extra drink or two. Using them at the coffee shop might have you super size your coffee or add a pastry. Of course this extra spending could lead you into a debt cycle exacerbating the financial hit many struggle with. Please tread carefully if you decide to use them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2e7a012cf98e72641115df9ad2d8bf", "text": "A few reasons make sense: They have a defined process for rentals, risk assessment, and customer credit. Especially for a large corporation, making changes to that process is not trivial, adds risk/uncertainty, and will be costly. Such changes for a relatively small customer base might not makes sense. Many rental companies DO allow you to rent with a debit card. Why do some businesses take cash only? With a debit card, there is no third party guarantee. With a credit card, the cash is coming from a well-established third party who will pay (assuming no disputes) and has a well-established history of paying. Even if the merchant holds your account, it is still your cash under the control of you and your bank until the deposit clears the merchants bank. It is not surprising they view that as more risk and potentially not worth hassling with debit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b7deb81ad4a582eb5faa70ec1ea7087", "text": "\"I don't know, but I can guess. You'll notice the Elite card has higher rewards. A card might want to convince merchants that they represent high end buyers, and use that to negotiate higher merchant discounts. Issuing bank: \"\"Our 10 million card holders are sophisticated and have lots of discretionary income. If you don't agree to this rate, we'll terminate the contract and they will take their business elsewhere.\"\" Merchant: \"\"But it's twice the rate of everyone else! I'm sure these customers have other means of payment, and besides, how many of those card holders are actually using it?\"\" Issuing bank: \"\"Our cardholders signal their interest in the benefits of cardholding by paying us an annual fee. If they didn't want one, they'd stop paying right? They clearly know they have one and our records indicate they use them regularly. We're pretty sure if you don't wise up they'll shop at your biggest competitor, another client of ours. pause Frankly, they already do.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2fadd0a3d14a203908b8eeb433eb2c", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091", "text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1eb37df8d834d9a541269b26ec8971da", "text": "\"Some features to be aware of are: How you prioritize these features will depend on your specific circumstances. For instance, if your credit score is poor, you may have to choose among cards you can get with that score, and not have much choice on other dimensions. If you frequently travel abroad, a low or zero foreign transaction fee may be important; if you never do, it probably doesn't matter. If you always pay the balance in full, interest rate is less important than it is if you carry a balance. If you frequently travel by air, an airline card may be useful to you; if you don't, you may prefer some other kind of rewards, or cash back. Cards differ along numerous dimensions, especially in the \"\"extra benefits\"\" area, which is often the most difficult area to assess, because in many cases you can't get a full description of these extra benefits until after you get the card. A lot of the choice depends on your personal preferences (e.g., whether you want airline miles, rewards points of some sort, or cash back). Lower fees and interest rates are always better, but it's up to you to decide if a higher fee of some sort outweighs the accompanying benefits (e.g., a better rewards rate). A useful site for finding good offers is NerdWallet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e784704c3b25e8a50f9d966eca4af8fc", "text": "The dollar is the reserve currency of choice because the full faith and credit of the US is big, liquid, and stable compared to any currently-available alternative. The Euro and Yuan are big enough to displace the dollar (and maybe the Yen), but any fears about the dollar being subject to fickle whims of politics and policy are significantly worse with those options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a6eca859a7f7153d84029bc32cdfaff", "text": "There are numerous reasons that go beyond the immediate requirement for access to credit. Many people just plain don't like carrying cash. Before electronic debit cards became mainstream about the only way to pay for online services was with a credit card. This has now changed just about everywhere except a large number of airlines which still only sell online tickets via a credit card payment. And then there are all those countries where governments (and some banks) have decided to charge merchants more when customers use debit cards. If you don't like carrying cash then you may find that the only card you can use is a credit card. These concerns are gradually disappearing and at some stage someone is likely to offer a combined debit-credit card. At which point you'll probably get credit whether you like it or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d905851f6af654a18f454d523e3f11ce", "text": "If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is. Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):", "title": "" }, { "docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406", "text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0d451afa068fba7cee2fe211e4678508", "text": "Depending on the student loan, this may be improper usage of the funds. I know the federal loans I received years ago were to be used for education related expenses only. I would imagine most, if not all, student loans would have the same restrictions. Bonus Answer: You must have earned income to contribute to an IRA (e.g. money received from working (see IRS Publication 590 for details)). So, if your earmarked money is coming from savings only, then you would not be eligible to contribute. As far as whether you can designate student loans for the educational expenses and then used earned income for an IRA I would imagine that is fine. However, I have not found any documentation to support my assumption.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceaaad75edfa1893ce85116db448f2b3", "text": "\"IRA contributions are limited; you cannot \"\"dump the excess into a retirement account like an IRA\"\" if the excess is more than $5500. Furthermore, as @firefly points out, you need to have earned income (technical term is compensation and it includes self-employment income, not just wages) to contribute to an IRA, and the limit mentioned above is actually the lesser of your earned income and $5500. (There are other limitations for people with high gross income, but these likely will not affect you) On the positive side, if your earned income is small, you can contribute your entire taxable earned income including the money withheld by your employer for Social Security and Medicare tax and Federal, State and local income taxes to an IRA, not just your take-home pay. For example, if your earned income is $5500 and take-home pay after tax withholding is $5000, you are still entitled to contribute $5500. So, where do you get that withheld money from so that it can be put into your IRA? Well, it can come from the student loan or interest earned from a bank or from the dividends and capital gains on your investments, etc. Money is fungible; it is not the case that only the cash received (or deposited into your bank account) as your take-home pay can be contributed. Subject to other limitations mentioned, your earned income can be contributed, not just your take-home pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6d357bb36c10951d145d54c5479691e", "text": "I will split my answer in a few sections... Note: I will not address the legal aspect of the question. If you can or not use Federal money to invest. 1st - Investments with Student Loan 2nd - IRA as the Instrument I hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fb2f58dbd04dbe88f23a6ab7b8993b0", "text": "\"I'd check the terms of the student loan. It's been a long time since I had a student loan, but when I did it had restrictions that it could only be used for educational expenses, which they pretty clear spelled out meant tuition, books, lab fees, I think some provision for living expenses. If your student loan is subsidized by the government, they're not going to let you use it to start a business or go on vacation ... nor are they likely to let you invest it. Even if it is legal and within the terms of the contract, borrowing money to invest is very risky. What if you invest in the stock market, and then the stock market goes down? You may find you don't have the money to make the payments on the loan. People do this sort of thing all the time -- that's what \"\"buying on margin\"\" is all about. And some of them lose a bundle and get in real trouble.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b9c3bb04b46463afad6e0e5eb5b5fc40", "text": "Given that money can go into the 401(k) pre-tax, and that once the loan is paid off, the principal is restored, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this approach. Am I missing something or does it actually make sense in my situation? You're missing several things. Here's a list of what I could think of: You should make sure that none of these issues is a problem for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a13e53bb0e27f1882735c04abdfa80", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b740b898731a15a46298c807c24c05d", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b82cd79bc4c9e8582cc5f0cc3f02a608", "text": "It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695649f7c084bc87b29cdbeb1cf3f2f2", "text": "\"I'd first put it in CDs or other short term account. Get through school first, then see where you land. If you have income that allows you to start a Roth IRA, I'd go for that, but keep it safe in case you actually need it back soon. After school, if you don't land a decent job fast, this money might be needed to live on. How long will it last if you take a few months to find work? If you do find a good job, moving, and setting up an apartment has a cost. Once you're there, I'd refer you to the many \"\"getting started\"\" Q&As on this site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7246080679e57da969988ad366823779", "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.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f47ca34c0ed5a2b8969c1a00d411e5c", "text": "It would probably never make sense to do that. Why would you? You'll end up in the bankruptcy court either way, since you won't be able to pay off the loan, and you cannot maintain the monthly payments without getting into more debt. IRA is shielded from bankruptcies, in most States, so it will probably stay with you afterwards. In any case - it will provide you some income when you're old and cannot keep up working. Unfortunately, Federal student loans are also shielded, but the rest of you debt - isn't. I suggest trying to fix your budgets and see how you can improve your earnings to be able to maintain your payments. I can't understand how you could have racked up $140K student debt and have a career at which you earn $55K/year for an experienced employee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03414ac16faff7680c7b9e0efefc349a", "text": "\"In general taking money out of a 401k to repay a loan is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Taxes and penalties if you are under 59 and 1/2 you will pay a 10% penalty on withdrawals from a traditional 401k plan. Then you are going add the amount you withdraw to your income in determining your current tax bill. If you make a large withdrawal you will likely push yourself into a higher tax bracket and will end up paying additional taxes than if you made several smaller withdrawals or waited until retirement when your income would presumably be lower. Taxes and penalties will mean you will need to withdraw ~225k in order to pay taxes and penalties while still having 150k to pay toward the mortgage (this assumes you are single and have no other income). You miss out on the growth your 401k could have had. Lack of diversification the average person has the majority of their net worth tied up in their home and by paying off your mortgage you are putting even more of your money into residential real estate. By moving money from a 401k to your personal residence you could also lose some protection from creditors and lawsuits. Retirement accounts are generally off limits to creditors where as your house is limited by the homestead exemption (varies greatly from state to state). There are a few times when it might makes sense to use 401k money to pay off a mortgage. If you are older than 59.5 and have little tolerance for risk it might make sense to take the amount of money between your current income and the next higher tax bracket and \"\"invest\"\" the money in your mortgage each year. You would still want to avoid taking out a large chunk at one time though to avoid pushing yourself into a much higher tax bracket.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c8f0cb3eae914971e07ea1db3b9be75", "text": "Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though. So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage. You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on: Good luck, EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore, Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7", "text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a55c7ba07da4507160395e58be83b72", "text": "\"Here are the risks involved with student loans: So - what happens if you decide (or are forced) not to finish school (50% of students don't)? You have no degree to boost income, but still have the debt. What happens when you graduate and want to use that saved cash buy a house, car, etc., and treat the student loans as a monthly bill? The next thing you know you're loan-poor and are struggling to make your monthly payments just like most other \"\"normal\"\" people. You aren't going to earn significant interest on your cash while you're in college (and it will not outpace inflation), and there's significant risk of your college savings losing money if they're not in risk-free investments, so it would NOT be wise to take out student loans when you have the means to cash-flow it. Also, student loans generally charge a roughly 1% fee, so that actually negates the interest you earn in your savings account. Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69064f4bfc9e28329b6ce9104c70f988", "text": "\"Already a lot of great answers, but since I ask myself this same question I thought I'd share my 2 cents. As @user541852587 pointed out, behavior is of the essence here. If you're like most recent grads, this is probably the first time in your life you are getting serious about building wealth. Can you pay your loans down quickly and then have the discipline to invest just as much -- if not more -- than you were putting towards your loans? Most people are good at paying bills in full and on time, yet many struggle to \"\"pay themselves\"\" in full and on time. As @Brandon pointed out, you can do both. I find this makes a great deal of practical sense. It helps form good behaviors, boosts confidence, and \"\"diversifies\"\" those dollars. I have been paying double payments on my student loans while at the same time maxing out my IRA, HSA, & 401k. I also have a rental property (but that's another can of worms). I'm getting on top and feeling confident in my finances, habits, etc. and my loans are going down. With each increase in pay, I intend to pay the loans down faster than I invest until they're paid off. Again -- I like the idea of doing both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa45b2deee8a6a82046b0c53b99e1fa", "text": "If the IRA is costing you $100 a year, you should almost certainly transfer it to a cheaper provider, regardless of whether you're going to withdraw anything. You can transfer the IRA to another provider that doesn't charge you the fees. Or you can convert it to Roth and combine it with your existing Roth. Either way, you will keep all the money, and save $100 per year in the future. If you want to take money out of your retirement accounts, you should take it out of your Roth IRA, because you can withdraw contributions (i.e., up to the amount you contributed) from the Roth without tax or penalty. Whether you should withdraw anything from your retirement accounts is a different question. If you're already maxing out your Roth IRA, and you have sufficient retirement savings, you could just instead plow that $5500 into your student loans. (If you can afford it, of course, it'd be better to just pay the $7500 from your income and still contribute to the retirement accounts.) There's no reason to withdraw from retirement accounts to pay loans when you could just divert current income for that purpose instead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c40d3c9349b7d236127280fc7b9dc354", "text": "Think about contributing to both a Traditional IRA and a Roth IRA if you have the funds. In theory, you could receive the lowest tax rates by depositing money into a regular IRA during years of democratic rule, depositing money into a Roth during years of Republic rule, and then withdrawing from the Roth during democratic rule and the tradition during Republican rule. Then you would be depositing with lower tax rates and withdrawing with lower tax rates. Granted this method would involve some speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f5ec48d95bfe886f06625d16f429661", "text": "I think it will be some time before we see the full effect this legislation will have on the overall markets. Insurance, as an industry is a tricky beast. Logically speaking for an industry outsider it may make sense that with more customers the insurance industry will mak emore money but, in actuality many people who could not previously get insurance are going to be getting insurance. What this means is that though the insurance companies will have more clients thier costs are likely to go up substantially. Which in turn will create downward pressure on profits and as a result stock prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b8243334f485269b3efe3be7e46832b8", "text": "Within some limitations, the dealer is allowed to approve or deny lending to anyone that it chooses. Those constraints are the basics that you'd expect for any regulation in the US: Race Religion Nationality Sex Marital Status Age Source of income You can read more about them in this leaflet from the FDIC's Fair Lending Laws office. (Link is a pdf download.) As far as what to do in your mother's case, it sounds like it may be some slightly shady sales tactics, but it isn't entirely illegal... It's just annoying. One thing you could do to try to head off some of the crazy bait-and-switch sales tactics is to communicate with a handful of dealerships in your area about the specifics of your mother's profile as a purchaser. It's much harder to give someone the run-around if you have already agreed to something in principle by email.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0811da7ac2144ef3ebc1e2d2b013f5fd", "text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9e750f0e4742820944816ee5fc7cc817", "text": "Break the transactions into parts. Go to your bank or credit union and get a loan commitment. When applying for loan get the maximum amount they will let you borrow assuming that you will no longer own the first car. Take the car to a dealer and get a written estimate for selling the car. Pick one that gives you an estimate that is good for a week or ten days. You now know a data point for the trade-in value. Finally go to the dealer where you will buy the replacement car. Negotiate the price, tell them you don't need financing and you will not be trading in the car. Get all you can regarding rebates and other special incentives. Once you have a solid in writing commitment, then ask about financing and trade in. If they beat the numbers you have regarding interest rate and trade-in value accept those parts of the deal. But don't let them change anything else. If you keep the bank financing the dealer will usually give you a couple of days to get a check. If you decide to ell the car to the first dealer do so as soon as you pick up the replacement car. If you try to start with the dealer you are buying the car from they will keep adjusting the rate, length of loan, trade-in value, and price until you have no idea if you are getting a good deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ef7667232ab7ff56a77be06213e42c5", "text": "\"Yes, he can retract the offer - it was a cash-only offer, and if you're financing, it's no longer \"\"cash\"\". Unless, of course, you get the financing through your local bank / credit union, and they hand you a check (like on a personal loan). Then it's still cash. However, the salesman can still retract the offer unless it's in writing because you haven't signed anything yet. The price of financing will always be higher because the dealer doesn't get all their money today. Also, if you finance, you are not paying just the cost of the vehicle, you are paying interest, so your final cost will be higher (unless you were one of the lucky souls who got 0% financing atop employee pricing, and therefore are actually saving money by having a payment).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b4edaa73af0efe82cbb95c36722f852", "text": "I would like to add that from my own research, a pro to leasing over buying a new vehicle would be that with the lease the entire 7,500 federal incentive is applied directly to the lease, or so they say. If you buy a new car you get a 7,500 federal tax incentive also but if you dont have 7,500 bucks in taxes this wont be as much value. It doesn't sense to me to buy used since you dont get the tax incentive and also if you're in california the 2,500 rebate only applies to buying new or leasing 30 month or longer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d651fd9c2cecbe2d92941c92c58e408", "text": "With new cars it's usually the other way around: finance at a low APR or get cash back when you buy it outright. With used cars you usually don't know how much they have invested in the car, so it's more difficult to know how low they're willing to go. Regardless, I do think it's odd that they would knock 2K off the price if you finance with them, but not if you pay cash. The only reason they would do that is if they intend to make at least 2K in interest over the life of the loan, but they have no way of guaranteeing you won't refi. Therefore, I suspect they are bluffing and would probably close the deal if you wrote them a check (or put the cash on the table) for 2K less. However, if they won't budge and will only knock off 2K if you finance, you could finance and pay it off in full a week later. Just make sure they don't have any hidden origination fees or pay-off-early fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41ff11e41f0777dc700007331f778d13", "text": "\"Every car company does this and its frustrating as hell. Something much more prevalent -- even commonplace -- is the car you booked not being able... not just car (much more common), but car type. When I travel I book flights/cars weeks if not months in advance. I travel on the company dime and they don't care if I get a Mustang convertible, Charger RT, etc., whatever. Again, booked weeks/months in advance. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to get off a 5-hour flight, take a 30-minute shuttle ride to the airport rental center (here's looking at you, DFW) and get there to be told I'm getting a Kia Sorento. I know it sounds snobbish, but I paid for the upgrade, I've still got an hour drive to XYZ, and I want something fun to drive. And they know, and I know, that bitching and moaning does absolutely nothing. If X car isn't on the lot, I'm not getting it, unless Jesus Christ himself comes down and brings a Hemi with him. I always see first timers there -- dads screaming at the desk agent with the wife and kids waiting on the benches, obviously exhausted and embarrassed -- trying to get the Tahoe or whatever they reserved. \"\"Let me speak to your manager.\"\" I have seen this maybe 5-6x, and every. single. time. the wife ends up calming the husband down, wife apologizes to the desk agent, and they take their Hyundai Santa Fe or whatever. It's like the twilight zone every time I see it. \"\"Is this family still here from last time? Nope, new family.\"\" TLDR; Convertible wasn't available, got the moped. Kind of like a convertible, I guess.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba37f8fbac914f2ec53278db02793614", "text": "Dealer financing should be ignored until AFTER you have agreed on the price of the car, since otherwise they tack the costs of it back onto the car's purchase price. They aren't offering you a $2500 cash incentive, but adding a $2500 surcharge if you take their financing package -- which means you're actually paying significantly more than 0.9% for that loan! Remember that you can borrow from folks other than the dealer. If you do that, you still get the cash price, since the dealer is getting cash. Check your other options, and calculate the REAL cost of each, before making your decisions. And remember to watch out for introductory/variable rates on loans! Leasing is generally a bad deal unless you intend to sell the car within three years or so.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d83da8b4a1ccb7bde4d33e13cb0fd76", "text": "I agree with Speedbird389 - I leased an economy car 10 years ago, paid the residual at the end of the lease because I knew the car would last a long time, but that cost me $5000 more than if I had bought it in the first place...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc2dfe450a48df2c777876f86fd96ba", "text": "I have a colleague who always leases cars first. He's very well off, has piles of money in savings, owns a home, and the cherry on top, he could just write a check for the car.... He sees the lease as an insurance policy on the first couple of years of the car's life. If it gets in an accident or he finds something about it he doesn't like, he can give it back to the dealer at the end of the term with no hassle and move on to the next car. Some people value the fact that a lease is a rental. If you're leasing a luxury car or something you couldn't otherwise afford, no amount of mental gymnastics will turn this in to a good idea. Separately, you should never make a down payment on a lease. If the car is totaled early on, you will not recoupe the money you put down. The issue here is that while the numbers all work out the same between a lease and a purchase your situation is different. If the leased car is totaled, the bank gets its money back from an insurer. If that payment doesn't cover the value of the car, the GAP insurance will cover it. In either situation, if there's an excess remaining it will be returned to you. The issue is the excess may not fully replace your down payment. If you then went to lease another car you would need to come up with that down payment again because you couldn't just simply choose to lease a used car; like you could in the case of a purchase. Additionally, GAP is generally included in a lease whether you want it or not. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't make financial sense to mitigate the value of the GAP coverage once you've decided to live in a lease situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2230d1d67aebbf0cbe938d31de014c5", "text": "\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d4e2921fe70ac4e499dd5d0c24be24c", "text": "A Lease is an entirely different way of getting a car. In two situations it makes sense, in all other scenarios it generally doesn't make sense to lease. In the case of always wanting a new car every 2 or 3 years it can make sense to lease. Of course if you drive more the allowed miles you will pay extra at the end of the lease. If you can take the monthly lease as a business expense leasing makes sense. Otherwise you want to pay cash, or get financing. Does zero percent make sense? Sometimes. The only way to make sense of the numbers is to start with your bank, have them approve of the loan first. Then armed with the maximum loan amount they will give you and the rate and the length of the loan, then visit the dealer. You have to run the numbers for your situation. It depends on your income, your other expenses, your credit score, your bank, what deal the dealership is running, how much you have for a down payment. Here is an example. For a recent loan situation I saw: 36 months, 1.49% rate, 20K loan, total interest paid: ~$466. Armed with that information can the person get a better deal at the dealership? There was only one way to find out. In that case the credit union was better. The rebate was larger than the interest paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdbf1d79dfc6ad93dfb29d25b8556d18", "text": "Christ, Seinfeld was mocking this twenty years ago. Do they not have a non-refundable, cast-iron reservation system? Seems nuts just to assume that customers prefer being able to cancel over the reassurance that Hertz won't cancel on them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba8dfecc2fe55f55b0b3c8313eb18008", "text": "\"I'm impressed. She must have a substantial income to agree to a $500/month car payment. I imagine her income is about 20K per month for that to make sense. What kind of work does she do? To answer your question, typical lease do not work the way you describe. Paying an extra $2000 will allow you to skip 4 payments (provided the payments were exactly $500) any time in the future. It does not modify the terms of the lease which would include the payment amount. Also one does not receive a fiance charge reduction benefit as with a loan. Essentially you are providing a loan to the leasing company for free. To be explicit you cannot tell the mortgage company anything as she is applying for the loan, not you. She can tell the mortgage company the new payment is $400, but she would be falsifying the application which is not advisable. Perhaps the mortgage company is doing her a favor. They are indicating her life is out of control financially. Either she is attempting to purchase way to much home or her consumer debt is out of control. It could be a combination of both. My first paragraph was written to be \"\"tongue in check\"\" in order to demonstrate absurdity. Without a substantial income and an substantial net worth, a 500/month car payment is simply ridiculous. While it is someone average, when you compare it to the average income (~54K/year) you understand why 78% of US households live paycheck-to-paycheck (are broke), and have no retirement savings. For your and her sake, please stop giving all your hard earned money to banks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316", "text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b605715d4578ff53e0f1b6bc6e390df0", "text": "The car deal makes money 3 ways. If you pay in one lump payment. If the payment is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, they make a profit. They loan you the money. You make payments over months or years, if the total amount you pay is greater than what they paid for the car, plus their expenses, plus their finance expenses they make money. Of course the money takes years to come in, or they sell your loan to another business to get the money faster but in a smaller amount. You trade in a car and they sell it at a profit. Of course that new transaction could be a lump sum or a loan on the used car... They or course make money if you bring the car back for maintenance, or you buy lots of expensive dealer options. Some dealers wave two deals in front of you: get a 0% interest loan. These tend to be shorter 12 months vs 36,48,60 or even 72 months. The shorter length makes it harder for many to afford. If you can't swing the 12 large payments they offer you at x% loan for y years that keeps the payments in your budget. pay cash and get a rebate. If you take the rebate you can't get the 0% loan. If you take the 0% loan you can't get the rebate. The price you negotiate minus the rebate is enough to make a profit. The key is not letting them know which offer you are interested in. Don't even mention a trade in until the price of the new car has been finalized. Otherwise they will adjust the price, rebate, interest rate, length of loan, and trade-in value to maximize their profit. The suggestion of running the numbers through a spreadsheet is a good one. If you get a loan for 2% from your bank/credit union for 3 years and the rebate from the dealer, it will cost less in total than the 0% loan from the dealer. The key is to get the loan approved by the bank/credit union before meeting with the dealer. The money from the bank looks like cash to the dealer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "779d5046f25234a651f2736f371e4849", "text": "For people who are good with money (presumably), Kiva.org gives your money to such people who apply for loans through social service organizations in various countries (I believe this is how it's done). The people state what they will use the money for. It can be as simple as 'buying provisions for food truck business' or 'replacing wheels on tractor.' Then they pay the money back and you (who donated x number of dollars) use that repaid money to make another loan.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1de928b6f5d455700ded4382b556409c", "text": "These two categories ensure you will carry the card in your wallet (since they only work for physical locations), but don't tend to have excessive spending (most people maxing out at $200 or so per month, so $2 for the bonus). You then use the same card for other purchases, because you have it on you, where you only get the 1%. It worked for me, I started carrying the Amazon card when I found out it had a higher percentage for gas purchases. I only use it for gas though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "035a423b9e88c47a1530b4882e8a95c7", "text": "I am not sure but probably it depends upon the cut the credit card company receives from the merchant. For Hotels such as dining etc. the cut could be more. Again, periodically, many merchants join with the card company to launch promotions. It could be part of such promotions. Apart from class of merchants, these points also differ on class of cards e.g a premium card will earn more rewards than a simple classic card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "328239ea8f56ab3fdff5eb918da716a7", "text": "Don't really know but I can guess. Firstly, everyone thinks the price of gas is too high. You drive to work every day, and gas is basically the only product who's price is advertised from the street! From that perspective. So mentally, I argue, we overvalue an extra 1 percent discount on gas. It's only worth maybe 60 cents a month to me, but worth a lot of other interchance fees for the credit card company. Secondly, gas stations are a prime robbery target. Credit cards mean less cash in the till. And less chance for employees to steal from the till, and less chance of counterfit money. Finally, it's a competitive market. If stations don't accept a card, they'll lose business to elsewhere. There's a gas station on either side of an intersection, and you can always tell which station is a few cents cheaper because it's the one with customers fueling up while the other one is a ghost town. They feel they have to compete on convenience or go under, and the credit card companies recruit you into the game with higher cash back rewards.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7c7cb28945526fa3c8277291b30bafa1", "text": "There are several issues with paying for furniture and appliances with 0% credit instead of paying with cash. When you pay with 0% credit, you might be tempted to spend more on something than you would have if you paid with cash, because it feels like free money, and you've justified in your mind that the extra you earn will help pay for the more expensive item. Businesses don't offer 0% credit for free, and they don't lose money on the deal. When you shop at a store that offers 0% credit, you are generally overpaying for the item. By shopping at a store that does not offer 0% credit, you might be able to get a better price. Your savings account is likely earning very little interest. You might invest the money you intend for your purchases in a place that gets better returns, but in most of these places the returns are not guaranteed, and you might not do as well as you think. 0% loans typically come with lots of conditions that have very heavy penalties and interest rate hikes for late payments. You can mitigate this risk by setting up automatic payments, but things can still go wrong. Your bank might change your account number, making the automated payment fail. As you mentioned, you might also forget to put the proper amount of money in the account. A single mistake can negate all of the tiny gains you are trying to achieve. Ultimately, the decision is yours, of course, but in my opinion, there is very, very little to gain with buying something on 0% credit when you could be paying cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "777609ebf107f439f7d88abfd8f47406", "text": "\"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are: 1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for \"\"enhanced\"\" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17e6cb39363323512e4c56d5b0e5e694", "text": "Credit cards and debit cards make up the bulk of the transactions in the US. Visa and Mastercard take a percentage of each credit card transaction. For the most part, this fee it built into the price of what you buy. That is, you don't generally pay extra at the grocery store if you use a credit card (gasoline purchases are a notable exception here.) If you were getting something like 2% of a third of all the retail transactions in the US, you'd probably not want to rock the boat too much either. Since there is little fraud relative to the amount of money they are taking in, and it can often be detected using statistical analysis, they don't really stand to gain that much by reducing it through these methods. Sure they can reduce the losses on the insurance they provide to the credit card consumer but they risk slowing down the money machine. These companies want avoid doing something like reducing fraud by 0.5% revenues but causing purchases with the cards drop by 1%. More security will be implemented as we can see with the (slow) introduction of chip cards in the US but only at a pace that will prevent disruption of the money machine. EMV will likely cause a large drop in CC fraud at brick-and-mortar stores but won't stop it online. You will likely see some sort of system like you describe rolled out for that eventually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "074ce24b4b91ea5b5e687d5911d8da83", "text": "5% cashback? Wow. No, this would not generally affect your credit rating. You aren't altering anything that is generally tracked by the credit rating agencies. You put a purchase on your credit card which temporarily increases your utilisation, but then immediately pay it off, leaving your utilisation practically unchanged.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f92d29b145907a0e067d913ff84eeed4", "text": "\"The confusion comes from ambiguity in popular belief -- that businesses are required to accept x_y_x as payment. In reality, a business can state the terms of a transaction to their pleasure. On the other hand, debt is different -- no lender can refuse cash or other legal tender for repayment of debt. Sometimes, people try to split hairs and argue \"\"Well, if I eat a steak and I owe the restaurant $100, they should have to accept my $100 as tender for the debt of my meal.\"\" Not true. The restaurant isn't giving you a line of credit, they're billing you after services rendered, and your payment is due on their terms.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842d702d0a16587e75274be26c6e911e", "text": "One reason why some merchants in the US don't accept Discover is that the fee the store is charged is higher than the average. Generally a portion of transaction fee for the network and the issuing bank goes to the rewards program. In some cases a portion of the interest can also be used to fund these programs. Some cards will give you more points when you carry a balance from one month to the next. Therefore encouraging consumers to have interest charges. This portion of the program will be funded from the interest charges. Profits: Rewards: Some rewards are almost always redeemed: cash once the amount of charges gets above a minimum threshold. Some are almost never redeemed: miles with high requirements and tough blackout periods. Credit cards that don't understand how their customers will use their cards can run into problems. If they offer a great rewards program that encourages use, but pays too high a percentage of points earned can lead to problems. This is especially true when a great percentage of users pay in full each month. This hurt Citibank in the 1990's. They had a card with no annual fee forever, and a very high percentage never had to pay interest. People flocked to the card, and kept it as an emergency card, because they knew it would never have a annual fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "767066e1be82bb833f52d561ec8096d6", "text": "Businesses are free to decide what payment methods they accept for their goods and services. Businesses sometimes advertise what credit cards they accept by posting some stickers at their door. When your credit card isn't among them and you don't have enough cash with you, ask about your card before you order. If a business doesn't accept your credit card, your best recourse is to take your business elsewhere. When you already ate there and got into an awkward situation because you assumed that they would accept your card, you might also want to write an online review of the place and warn others to bring cash for their visit (but please be fair in the review. When the food and service are decent, a restaurant doesn't deserve a one star rating just because they don't take credit cards). Note that businesses have good reasons to not accept credit cards. It often means additional cost for them in form of: But there is also a more shady reason. Taking payment in cash means that there is no electronic trail of the transaction. That makes it far easier for an establishment to misreport their income. They might under-report it to evade taxes or over-report it to launder money (both are illegal, of course).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9986ea75e33396169977ca008189726c", "text": "A *lot* of big companies offer credit cards. And it makes total sense. For example, if you have a Macy's card, you get access to special discounts that you wouldn't normally get. It saves the consumer money and builds loyalty to the brand. Same for Southwest credit cards. It's a completely normal move. EDIT: Also, Uber doesn't actually have to do much - it's the issuing bank that manages the program. *Most* of the branded credit cards you see are Chase, BTW. Amazon and Southwest are both run by Chase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb0e3e99c7cda972e38413ba3620e23d", "text": "\"There are hidden costs to using rewards cards for everything. The credit card company charges fees to the merchant every time you make a purchase. These fees are a small amount per transaction, plus a portion of the transaction amount. These fees are higher for rewards cards. (For example, the fees might be 35 cents for a PIN-transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 2 percent for an ordinary credit card or signature transaction on a debit card, or 35 cents plus 3.5 percent on a rewards card.) After considering all of their expenses, merchant profit margins are often quite small. To make the same amount of profit by serving a rewards-card customer as a cash customer, the merchant needs to sell higher profit-margin items and/or more items to the rewards-card customer. People who \"\"pay with plastic\"\" tend to spend more than people who \"\"pay with cash\"\". If you pay with a rewards card, will you spend even more?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091", "text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac18f121ae9ec8c4697b03740588d5c8", "text": "Michael Pryor's answer is accurate to the actual question asked. The current accepted answer from Dheer is not entirely true but roughly provides an overview of the different entities involved in a typical transaction, with some wrong terminologies, corrected and improved below. The issuing bank, the one that issues the credit card to the customer. When it comes to the service fee split, the issuer bank takes on the majority of the cut in the service fee paid by the merchant to the different entities. For example, on a 2.5% overall fee paid by merchant, roughly 1.5% goes to the issuer, 0.3% goes to the card network (visa, master card, etc) and the remaining 0.7% goes to the acquiring bank. Reward programs have a partnership with participating merchants, where merchants are charged a higher service fee, for the likelihood of driving a higher volume of transactions to the merchant. A portion of the rewards also comes from the issuer, who shares a percentage of their fee back to the customer, in exchange for the same likelihood of making more profit through increased volume in total transactions. For example, a reward program may charge merchants 4.5% fee, with 3.5% of it going to the issuer. Upto 3% of this can be given back to the customer for their loyalty in using the card service. The banks can afford to take as little as 0.5% instead of their regular 1.5% due to the increased volume of transactions and the fixed fee they collect as membership fee. Note that costco has a similar business plan, but they make money entirely of membership fee. So with enough clients, banks can theoretically afford to run their program entirely on membership fees, costing no additional service fee to merchants. The service fee depicted above is arbitrary, and it can be lowered if the merchant is also a client of the issuing bank, that is, both the issuing bank and acquiring bank are the same. So it is kind of a win-win-win situation. And as usual, the banks can afford to make a larger income, if the customer ends up paying interest for their credit - although the rewards program is not designed accounting on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc736a0253f9ea442158e48f5bc98ccb", "text": "\"I thought I'd see if the credit card companies had anything to say about this while trying to get merchants to sign up. I went to visa.com, clicked \"\"Run Your Business\"\" in the top nav, then \"\"Accept Visa Payments\"\". This page has a \"\"More benefits of accepting Visa\"\" link with an overlay (which I can't easily link directly to), which includes these lines: While the average cash transaction is $17, credit card purchases average $70 while debit card purchases average $36.² ² Visa Payment Panel Study (2Q11 to 1Q12 time period); Visa MARS Data: March 2015 – May 2015 That obviously doesn't tell the entire story (I suspect people are more likely to pull out cash when they're just buying a stick of gum, and more more likely to pull out a card when they're buying large electronics), but certainly there is some evidence from the credit card companies themselves that people spend more when using cards, which is one of the aspects they use to convince merchants to accept cards. I think the best evidence that people spend more is that more and more merchants accept cards. Accepting cards comes with some significant costs (though it's important to keep in mind that accepting cash can come with some significant costs as well). I suspect that merchants wouldn't do so unless the increased sales that they get for accepting cards makes up for the fees that they need to pay and the equipment they need to buy to accept them (not to mention the risks of chargebacks and the like).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0411535c70229c0ad41f4dd04e9319", "text": "\"My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else. We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford. In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as \"\"real\"\" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20ca1ed7ba57ada5af42c7a9bdf23d1", "text": "RTFA &gt;Noah places the high-water mark for unionism in the mid-1950s, when nearly 40 percent of American workers were either union members or “nonunion members who were nonetheless covered by union contracts.” In the early postwar years, even the Chamber of Commerce believed that “collective bargaining is a part of the democratic process,” as its then-president noted in a statement. &gt;But, in the late-1970s, union membership began falling off a cliff, brought on by a variety of factors, including jobs moving offshore and big labor’s unsavory reputation. Government didn’t help either: Ronald Reagan’s firing of the air traffic controllers in 1981 sent an unmistakable signal that companies could run roughshod over federal laws intended to protect unions — which they’ve done ever since. &gt;The result is that today unions represent 12 percent of the work force. “Draw one line on a graph charting the decline in union membership, then superimpose a second line charting the decline in middle-class income share,” writes Noah, “and you will find that the two lines are nearly identical.” Richard Freeman, a Harvard economist, has estimated that the decline of unions explains about 20 percent of the income gap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5173b4baf00f45b2cd4262eb0d06c1c", "text": "\"Here's an excerpt from VISA's Card Acceptance Guidelines for Visa Merchants (PDF) The merchant name is the single most important factor in cardholder recognition of transactions. Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name, while reflecting the merchant’s “Doing Business As” (DBA) name, also be clearly identifiable to the cardholder. This can minimize copy requests resulting from unrecognizable merchant descriptors. Merchant applications typically list the merchant name as the merchant DBA. This may differ from the legal name (which can represent the corporate owner or parent company), and may differ from the owner’s name which, for sole proprietorships, may reflect the business owner. I think that the key statement above is \"\"Therefore, it is critical that the merchant name [...] be clearly identifiable to the cardholder.\"\" Since this merchant was not clearly identifiable to the cardholder, they are in breach of a critical point in these guidelines. This is from VISA, but I would assume that all other major credit cards would have similar guidelines for their merchants. However keep in mind that these are \"\"guidelines\"\", and not (necessarily) rules.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "01558f7d14b174c47a9cde99f93c2a56", "text": "\"Assume they do not overwithhold. You pay in $500/mo, and every time it hits $3000, they pay the tax. Engineers call this a sawtooth function, it looks like this. The average balance is not $3000, but close to $1500. The very simple math is $1500 * rate * years. It looks like your equation except it's not 58, it's just the years. And the question is whether you can make more than $850 on $1500 average before you sell. I wouldn't be so quick to plug in 29 years, as the average home ownership is 7 years, and depending, who knows if a refinance is in your future? The bottom line - How long would it take you to get a 57% return (2350/1500)? Ironically, the most responsible (and risk averse) person would say \"\"decades. Banks offer less than 1%.\"\" even an 8% market return, while not guaranteed, is close to 7 years. But, if you carry 18% credit card debt, you can pay it down a bit each month and let it float back up every 6 months. Less than 4 years to break even.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e0f5a5bd8fcf16434ed72e82e14daf0", "text": "Consider that the bank of course makes money on the money in your escrow. It is nothing but a free loan you give the bank, and the official reasons why they want it are mostly BS - they want your free loan, nothing else. As a consequence, to let you out of it, they want the money they now cannot make on your money upfront, in form of a 'fee'. That explains the amount; it is right their expected loss by letting you out. Unfortunately, knowing this doesn't change your options. Either way, you will have to pay that money; either as a one-time fee, or as a continuing loss of interest. As others mentioned, you cannot calculate with 29 years, as chances are the mortgage will end earlier - by refinancing or sale. Then you are back to square one with another mandatory escrow; so paying the fee is probably not a good idea. If you are an interesting borrower for other banks, you might be able to refinance with no escrow; you can always try to negotiate this and make it a part of the contract. If they want your business, they might agree to that.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9bc64707f88aaa78053413758a34ecec", "text": "First, you are reading that document correctly, but it's not 78% of original mortgage. It is actually 78% of original home value. For example, if the home was valued at $100K when you bought it and you received a $90K loan, PMI must be removed when you owe $78K, not 78% of $90K. To make matters worse for the bank, they missed the required timing to drop PMI. I would print the document you referenced, cite the applicable portion, and tell them if they do not comply, you will report them for failure to comply. For example, I'm sure I am not the only one in this situation, and the FDIC will be eager to assess the huge fines they can collect from a bank that isn't operating within the law. Something like that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "274791c8ba2da06007fb295ff065b8aa", "text": "FYI - I'm not a lawyer I would not try to reverse the transfer. You need to create a paper trail as to what happened to this money and why. Be sure to document whatever you do. Reach out again Reach out to the company again and see if you can transfer the money back to their account. A wire transfer is $20 (usually), be sure to negotiate the company covering this, and every other fee. If you cannot reach them You could probably move the money to an escrow account at your new bank. The new bank will likely be able to advise you on the best way do this. You should probably also send a letter via certified mail (to ensure they received it) informing them you've done this and how to get in touch with you. By putting the money in an escrow account, you've proven that you haven't used it, and if the company wants it back its very obvious who's money it is. Sending the certified mail (someone must sign for it), will also create a paper trail that will help you if things get ugly. Finally don't spend it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed0701b49eb83aaf28ee43892e06062", "text": "I don't think you should have to cancel your card. Call your customer service line and just indicate to them what has happened. You aren't getting service for what they are charging you and they are refusing to remove it themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "346dde80264c35ac1d211efd5b83ad38", "text": "\"My gym has a habit of randomly increasing our monthly payment with a $20 \"\"Special Fee\"\" a couple times a year. This charge was not initiated until after I signed up, and signed authorization for a set monthly fee. The agreement I signed included no wording of this fee, so I have not given them permission to charge me this fee. I also have received no type of notification of this fee prior to it being charged to my credit card on file. This seems very illegal to me. Am I right? What course of action might I have to get this stopped?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fdb10d3eb915b4a852e9c5f6aee1d2e", "text": "i prepaid roughly $400 at closing into escrow. that's my minimum allowable balance. paid in all year, and now taxes and insurance are paid in december. after december, they're projecting a $200 balance, which is $200 too low. homeowners insurance hasn't changed, pmi hasn't changed, property taxes are virtually identical to estimate at closing. the difference is that the $400 initial payment didn't factor in timing of those payments out of escrow. pretty lame if you ask me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15403ed7ab7fbb0b95f83fa531977291", "text": "I've done this, but on the other side. I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with. A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it. All of the payments went through a professional escrow company. In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up). They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc. You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office. If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you. It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer. You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it. The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income. The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received. There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dcd0516af6d616c1e49d8aa1005b801", "text": "\"I simply wrote my bank an email and said, \"\"I want to handle my own escrow\"\". They said, \"\"fine\"\" and even let me set up a third account called \"\"escrow\"\" (savings and checking being the other two) that I just transfer money into whenever I want. But, I don't actually know what their requirements are for doing that. I have a ton of equity in the house, and I never missed a payment, AND I have direct deposit at that institution. So, it can be done.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbd6c2dfd00266e39e2432389d038f40", "text": "The money NEVER becomes your money. It has been paid to you in error. Your best response is to write to the company who has paid you in error and tell them that for the responsibilty and subsequent stress caused to you by them putting you in a position of looking after their money you hereby give notice that you are charging them $50 per week until such time as they request the repayment of their money. Keep a dated copy of your letter and if they fail to respond then in 12 weeks they will have to pay you $600 to retrieve their $600. If they come back to you anytime after that they will OWE YOU money - but I wouldn't push for payment on that one. I have successfully used this approach with companies who send unsolicited goods and expect me to mess about returning them if I don't want them. I tell them the weekly fee I am charging them for storage and they quickly make arrangements to either take their goods back or (in one case) told me to keep them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac46dcc33f60672082a44fa0a9ae358d", "text": "Question: I live in half of a duplex together with other college students. I put my rent (roughly $750 in cash) in the landlord's mailbox while he was out of town for three weeks. I told him ahead that I would do this, but he claims I never did, and he would have asked me not to. Anyway, now he claims the money was not there when he returned and I still owe $750. Answer: Well, that's tough. It could be that the money was stolen from the mailbox. It could be that the landlord pocketed the money and is trying to scam you. Your problem is that you have no receipt, and no evidence at all that you paid the money. There's little you can do other than paying up (again) and learning from this expensive lesson.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c76b97fce53688c272eebaeee2f0c8d", "text": "What you are describing here is the opposite of a problem: You're trying to contact a debt-collector to pay them money, but THEY'RE ignoring YOU and won't return your calls! LOL! All joking aside, having 'incidental' charges show up as negative marks on your credit history is an annoyance- thankfully you're not the first to deal with such problems, and there are processes in place to remedy the situation. Contact the credit bureau(s) on which the debt is listed, and file a petition to have it removed from your history. If everything that you say here is true, then it should be relatively easy. Edit: See here for Equifax's dispute resolution process- it sounds like you've already completed the first two steps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28ae310b1e58177ed295db70764fc0fc", "text": "My bank did fine the first couple years of handling my escrow, then out of the blue, totally messed it up and cost me a lot of time straightening it all out with them as well as straightening out with my taxing authority. I told them to send me the balance of the escrow and cancel it, that I would handle it from then on and they did. There was a qualification that I met, I just can't remember what that was. I too have a lot of equity and was never late on a payment. I also manage it via direct deposit from my paychecks into interest bearing accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96aefa42c9120412e688d4e47ccabd3c", "text": "Street name is not what you think it is in the question. The broker is the owner in street name. There is no external secondary owner information. I don't know if there is available independent verification, but if the broker is in the US and they go out of business suddenly, you can make a claim to the SIPC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c", "text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b20dde4b533b9447acdebeffe1611f43", "text": "According to the article this is not actually a fine, they are just buying back the mortgages they sold in the first place. One has to wonder if they are buying them back at the same price that they sold them or if it's a discount. E.g. They sold you a lemon for $1000, offer to buy it back for $10? Other questions: If they are buying them back then are they now going to start foreclosing like criminals like BoA did?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68e38803810fa7ef91d6f8e0c8d3ca94", "text": "Sorry, this is sensationalist bullshit. Escrow payments have been around forever - they're not specific to BofA or the mortgage bubble, they've probably been common practice for decades. It's a much easier way for many people to pay their taxes and insurance, and banks don't net any profit for doing this*. Rather, it's an easy way for them to keep tabs on whether homeowners have insurance or not - if a home is uninsured by the owner the bank will have to insure it on its own. (* banks are entitled to collect some escrow overage - I think it's 8% - in the event that taxes or insurance are higher than expected, but that is still the homeowners money, and would be cashed out in a payoff.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3ce355acb135be6179a11107e4bd2226", "text": "Be aware that ATM withdrawals often generate hidden fees, which are not obviously declared. Many banks operate e.g. with a currency exchange fee, giving you an exchange rate some 1-2% lower than actually applicable. If you withdraw larger amounts, such a currency exchange fee easily adds up to what you would have paid for a wire transfer, where you would get a better exchange rate. Although it's probably much hassle for you to change banks, another option may be to find a bank which operates both in France and the US. Banks with different national branches often offer cheap and fast wire transfers between same-bank accounts in different countries. E.g. Citibank used to offer such services, but I am not sure if they still serve private customers in France.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bc88f2f6532e046b59200081edaab", "text": "I faced something similar for travel or work reasons, and as for me I preferred wire transfer over credit card withdrawals because my bank has huge fees. My thoughts so far are: the fee can vary a lot for credit card. As for me, I can expect 5% fees on foreign withdrawals. But I considered changing bank and I think a Gold (or premium) card might be a good idea as well. The idea is you pay a big subscription (100 euros or so) but have no fee. The total of withdrawal fees could easily (if you stay long abroad) reach this amount. There are also banks like HSBC that offer low fees on withdrawals abroad, you can ask them. The problem is that you cannot really withdraw huge amounts to lower the fee (since you carry this cash in the street). for wire transfers the total fee is usually $50 or more (I had a fee from distant bank, a fee for change and a fee in my home bank). But the amount is unlimited (or high enough to be of little matter) and I needed to do this once per year or so. So I guess it could be interesting if you have enough savings to only transfer money every couple of months or so. I think Western Union is also involved this profitable business. I never used it because the fees are pretty high, but maybe it is useful for not too big amounts frequently transfered. Actually, have you considered a loan? It's a very random idea but maybe you can use a loan as a swap and then transfer money when you have enough to reimburse it all. But the question is very interesting, I think the business is pretty huge due to globalization. It is expensive because some people can make a lot of money out of it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eef390d48857296621a5fd38aab8005", "text": "Several possibilities come to mind: Several online currency-exchange brokers (such as xe.com and HiFx) offer very good exchange rates and no wire transfer fees (beyond what your own bank might charge you). Get French and American accounts at banks that are part of the Global ATM alliance: BNP Paribas in France and Bank of America in the USA. This will eliminate the ATM fee. Get an account at a bank that has branches in both countries. I've used HSBC for this purpose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e53fd9523e727727b8cc719c89d51ff5", "text": "One way is to wire transfer large amounts. If you transfer $5,000 at one go, that $50 fee works out to 1%, same as the $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal (and ATM fees, hidden and explicit, tend to be higher than $5). The downside is exchange rate risk (taking more money at one go exposes you to that day's rate, good or bad, vs taking it in multiple chunks). If you're American, you also have to report large transfers and foreign balances on your taxes. Shopping around for a good home bank (with low wire & foreign ATM fees), is quite important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d49a2b24ef46673bb8ce23721a8baed", "text": "I did some empirical research, comparing the exchange rates for wire transfers vs. the exchange rates for ATM withdrawals. With my bank, wire transfers typically take a 4% float off the exchange rate. ATM withdrawals seem to take just over 2%. And ATM withdrawals don't have a wire transfer fee, as long as I'm withdrawing from a branch of the same bank (overseas). The only problem with ATM withdrawals is the daily limit. As far as I can see, Tor's answer above has it completely backwards, at least with my bank, ATM withdrawals are a much better value. Do the research yourself...call the bank you're going to transfer from and find out what their current exchange rate is. Compare it to the current spot rate (e.g. XE.com) to determine how much of a cut the bank is taking. Then, if you can, withdraw some cash from the foreign location with your ATM card and see how much of the original currency is deducted from your account. In this way you can empirically discover for yourself the better rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340", "text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "760bb7064f6c23da8d27ebfbb4b7786f", "text": "Check global ATM alliance they are banks that use reciprocal benefits on each other in other countries without fees. For example the in the USA Bank of America and In France it is BNP Paribas. Both are banks in this alliance. I use this option between the United States and the Caribbean my banks of choice are Bank of America in the US and in the Caribbean I use Scotia Bankand since I have accounts in both weekends I can use both ATM cards on any of these two banks without any processing fees!!!! You should check the global ATM alliance to see if it is an option that you could use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f86d9531054d39e2a41f39f593c483d", "text": "Depending on your income/savings level and who you work for (if you work for a big company check with an HSBC Premier advisor, they may waive the requirements), you may qualify for an HSBC Premier account, which can allow you to open accounts in different countries and transfer money between them without a fee. You can also get a Premier account without meeting the requirements if you are willing to pay a monthly fee, but I doubt that will be worth it in the long run for what you need (worth doing the math though if you travel frequently). NOTE: There may be similar offerings from other banks, but this is just the only one I'm aware of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72b452624646db70ff1533aa27000710", "text": "I haven't seen this answer, and I do not know the legality of it, as it could raise red flags as to money laundering, but about the only way to get around the exchange rate spreads and fees is to enter into transactions with a private acquaintance who has Euros and needs Dollars. The problem here is that you are taking on the settlement risk in the sense that you have to trust that they will deposit the euros into your French account when you deposit dollars into their US account. If you work this out with a relative or very close friend, then the risk should be minimal, however a more casual acquaintance may be more apt to walk away from the transaction and disappear with your Euros and your Dollars. Really the only other option would be to be compensated for services rendered in Euros, but that would have tax implications and the fees of an international tax attorney would probably outstrip any savings from Forex spreads and fees not paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb4d41c48db1ec43b5a542e87f30065", "text": "I think the one single answer is that the answer depends on the two countries involved and their banks' practices. To find that answer, you need to ask other expats from your country living in France and ask them for their experience. Note that most expats do not know what fees they are paying. For example, in the Philippines, the lowest fee charged still involves waiting 30 days to get your money. Specifically, I opened a US dollar savings account with the minimum of US $500 required (other rules are involved for opening a bank account), deposited a personal check drawn on my US bank account (no fee charged), and waited 30 calendar days to withdraw USD bills. The Philippines bank did not have a branch in the US, but had financial arrangements with US banks. After getting USD dollars in my hand, I walked to a nearby exchange business store (which usually offered a better daily rate than a bank, but a rate between the banks' buy and sell rates) and exchange the dollars for pesos. Note that years ago, banks did not give USD bills, when dollars were scarce in the Philippines. However, this process does not work in Thailand, due to bank rules against private individuals opening a USD account, with exceptions. And there are still fees involved. March 2017", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "43a9b92312ba34413f5070c89cd8da50", "text": "I live in europe but have been paid in usd for the last few years and the best strategy I've found is to average in and average out. i.e. if you are going in August then buy some Euro every few weeks until you go. At least this way you mitigate the risk involved somewhat.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb7552c1ff46cd7722042c55aa395f87", "text": "RoyalBank provides a no fee transfer service (no fee in the sense that there is no per transfer fee aside from the spread). There is monthly fee if you keep less than 1500 or so on the american side. http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/usbanking/cross-border-transfer.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98cf6419843e739fcdc244c80134fbc", "text": "A 2.5% fee is standard, and you're not likely to avoid a transaction fee when withdrawing cash from an ATM. You'd do better to get foreign currency before leaving the US, or to use a credit card abroad. Capital One has a credit card with no fee on foreign-currency purchases, for example. Another option is to open a bank account in the foreign currency, if you go to a particular country often enough to make it worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d", "text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb9a03241f0728bbb281cd981a8ef674", "text": "Depending on how tech savvy your client is you could potentially use bitcoin. There is some take of indian regulators stopping bitcoin exchanges, meaning it might be hard to get your money out in your local country but the lack of fees to transfer and not getting killed on the exchange rate every time has a huge impact, especially if your individual transaction sizes are not huge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4ea222c46b78da5d98cec42d6f91562", "text": "I use XE.com for almost the same purpose. They have free transfer options, such as ACH withdrawals and deposits. I normally do a online bill payment through my international bank to XE, and have them deposit it in the US via ACH. It takes 1-3 business days, and there's no fee beyond their small percentage (about 1.25%) on top of the exchange rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e8494e54f4125111114c7361174730d", "text": "\"Am I wrong? Yes. The exchanges are most definitely not \"\"good ole boys clubs\"\". They provide a service (a huge, liquid and very fast market), and they want to be paid for it. Additionally, since direct participants in their system can cause serious and expensive disruptions, they allow only organizations that know what they're doing and can pay for any damages the cause. Is there a way to invest without an intermediary? Certainly, but if you have to ask this question, it's the last thing you should do. Typically such offers are only superior to people who have large investments sums and know what they're doing - as an inexperienced investor, chances are that you'll end up losing everything to some fraudster. Honestly, large exchanges have become so cheap (e.g. XETRA costs 2.52 EUR + 0.0504% per trade) that if you're actually investing, then exchange fees are completely irrelevant. The only exception may be if you want to use a dollar-cost averaging strategy and don't have a lot of cash every month - fixed fees can be significant then. Many banks offer investments plans that cover this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4b4bff9088e5f343db874e4d24389cb", "text": "If you’re concerned about transferring USD, I can’t really help you there. But if you’re looking to transfer wealth, I believe that’s where something like Bitcoin could help you. In fact a small or nonexistent processing fee is one of Bitcoin’s biggest strengths as a currency. Off the top of my head, I believe BitPay has services that would suit your needs. And if you’re worried about the volatility of Bitcoin, you can always convert it straight to USD just so you can avoid service fees!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6f497d0d1f37a618b3d6ef7938703e3", "text": "Wire transfers are the best method. Costs can vary from $10 to $100 or more, depending on the banks and countries involved. There's rarely any saving using the same bank, although HSBC may have reduced charges if you have Premier accounts in both countries (for a one-off transaction, it may not be worth the effort to open an account). However, that cost is insignificant compared to your possible losses on the currency exchange. Assuming your money is currently in Hong Kong Dollars (HKD), it will need to be converted to US Dollars (USD). One place where it could be converted is at your Hong Kong bank. You'll get their retail rate. Make sure you are aware of the rate they will use, and any fees, in advance. Expect to pay around 2-3% from the mid-market rate (the rate you see quoted online, which doesn't fluctuate much for HKD-USD as the currencies are linked). Another place where the currency could be converted is at your US bank. You really don't get any control over that if it arrives as HKD and is then automatically converted into your USD. The rate and fees could be quite poor, especially if it is a minor US bank that has to deal with anther bank for foreign currency. For amounts of this size, it's worthwhile using a specialist currency conversion company instead. Currency Fair in Ireland is one. It's a peer-to-peer exchange that is generally the best deal (at least for the currency pairs I use). You wire the money to them, do the exchange on their site at a rate that is much closer to 0.5% from the midrate, then the money is transferred out by wire for a few dollars. Adds a few days to the process, but will possibly save you close to US$1000. Another established option is Currency Online in New Zealand. There are probably also specialist currency exchange companies in Hong Kong. The basic rule is, don't let the banks exchange currencies at rates that suit them, use a third party that offers a better rate and lower fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73d2f348f3576d5ac88d7a304f9538a9", "text": "You want to bank with HSBC: From: http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/1/2/international/foreign-exchange-currency/foreign-exchange/faqs HSBC Bank International does not charge ‘commission’, therefore offering 0% commission on foreign currency exchange transactions", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7957baed2fcd5a97163f83bb26a8c990", "text": "It really depends on the amount of money - I currently have to pay my mortgage in the UK from the US until my house there is sold and my wife sends money from her (US) Paypal account to my UK Paypal account. As personal payments these don't attract the sort of fees you see for ebay payments et al. Compared to the fee-o-rama that a wire transfer turns into (I tried once from BofA to HSBC UK), it is noticeably cheaper for the amount of money we're sending. That said, a lot of the currency transfer services have support for monthly payments and you might get a decent exchange rate and fewer (or no) fees that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a078d5ad94146882425b26d8951d861", "text": "I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3afb4be6ac9ba07245eba110446a4a3", "text": "Check with stock brokers. Some of them will offer ILS->USD conversion at a very beneficial rate (very close to the official), without any commission, and flat-priced wire transfers. For large amounts this is perfect. I know for a fact that Gaon Trade used to do that ($15 for a wire transfer of any amount), but they are now defunct... Check with Meitav (their successor) and others if they still do these things. If you're talking about relatively small amounts (up to several thousands $$$) - you may be better off withdrawing cash or using your credit card in the US. For mid range (up to $50K give or take, depending on your shopping and bargaining skills) banks may be cheaper. A quick note about what jamesqf has mentioned in his answer... You probably don't want to tell your banker that you're moving to the US. Some people reported banks freezing their accounts and demanding US tax info to unfreeze, something that you're not required to provide according to the Israeli law. So just don't tell them. In the US you'll need to report your Israeli bank/trading/pension/educational/savings/insurance accounts on FBAR and FATCA forms when you're doing your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fa6c81a8ef6708e1285d62e7d01d454", "text": "\"The \"\"hidden\"\" fees in any transfer are usually: Foreign exchange transfer services are usually the cheapest option for sending money abroad when a conversion is involved. They tend to offer ways to get the money to or from them cheaply or for free and they typically offer low or no fees plus much better exchange rates than the alternatives. My preferred foreign exchange service is XE Trade. It looks like they support CAD to ZAR transfers so you might check them out. In my experience, they have not set a minimum on the amount I send although it does impact the exchange rate they will offer. The rate is still better than other alternatives available to me though. Note that for large enough transfers, the exchange rate difference will dominate all other costs. For example, if you transfer $10,000 and you pay $100 for the transfer plus $50 in wire fees ($150 in fees) but get a 2% better exchange rate than a \"\"free\"\" service, you would save $50 by choosing the non free service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d42df4b19921edac9589e2d0d8ad984a", "text": "\"The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about \"\"small government\"\" and \"\"cutting government expenses\"\" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a076691090c6252f90551775a973c8fa", "text": "Generally, if you have a loan, you have a credit score. But since you have never had a loan before, then it is likely that you do not have a credit score. You should not be worried if you aren't planning on applying for credit and/or loans. If you are wanting to purchase a house, car, or even just having a credit card, you should work on obtaining a secure loan so then you can establish history. Most of the time you have to pay to view your credit score. By law, you can obtain a free copy of your credit report, which it sounds like you have at annualcreditreport.com, which only shows your payment history, but in order to view your credit score, you generally have to pay for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daa5dd379131b614b18d527b58726143", "text": "\"You can't get your credit score for free, just the report with the information the score is based on. If you got credit reports through annualcreditreport.com, the Score tab would typically contain an advertisement for purchasing your score. If you have an ad-blocker enabled, that might be blocked, explaining the blank page. Try turning off any browser extensions that alter how pages are shown. The accounts page/tab/section should show something like \"\"0 open accounts\"\" or similar, to indicate that it is loading data. Your lack of credit history probably does mean you don't have a credit score, so it's probably not worth paying anything to find that out. The focus should be on the accuracy of the underlying report, since you can do something about that. Should I be worried? I'd say no on that. You'll have an easier time getting credit (and better terms) in the future if you start now with some account, even if it's a secured credit card you don't use much, because the age of the oldest and average accounts are factors in credit scoring models.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "426732136eca3b2ab7cf31da061c990a", "text": "I'm the contrarian in the crowd. I think credit scores and debt are the closest thing to evil incarnate. You're in good company. The absence of a credit score simply means the agencies have insufficient data in their behavioral model to determine how profitable your business would be to the bank. The higher your score, the more likely the bank is to make a profit from your loan. IMHO, you're better off building up cash and investment reserves than a credit history. With sufficient reserves, you will be able to shop around for a bank that will give you a good rate, if you ever do need a loan. You'll be surprised at how quickly you get in a position where you don't need a loan if you save and invest wisely. I used to have a (high) credit score, and I was miserable about it because there were always bills due. I gave up debt 14 years ago, paid the last debt 7 years ago, and have never. been happier. Raising kids without debt (or credit score) is much more fun than with debt.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "99203c88c1c3e174e639b20cbb55e3be", "text": "If credit scoring works in the UK like it does in the US, then I think the fact that you own+use a credit card and pay off your everyday expenses will give you perfectly good credit. Just keep doing what you're doing. I have seen people in the United States with very high credit scores based solely upon owning & occasionally using a credit card, paid in full and on time every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db6ab0b8e2dee288c1b67cff6ff26972", "text": "Don't do debt. After a few years (I forget how many) the bad history will have rolled off, but by then you will probably have no desire to go back into debt again. If you do want to build up a credit score, then at that point it's essentially the same as starting from scratch. However, from personal experience, once you've lived debt free for a few years you never want to get back on the debt wheel again. A credit score is the output of a behavioral model that indicates the chances that a bank will earn money from your business. Do things that earn the banks money and you will have a high credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e08839cdf11b0ddd69897437b1b0ad", "text": "Something I'd like to plant firmly into your mind - If you're able to save up enough money to buy the things you want outright, credit will be of little use to you. Many people find once they've accumulated very good credit scores by use of good financial habits, that they rarely end up using credit, and get little out of having a 'great' credit score compared to an 'average' credit score. Of course, a lot of that would depend on your financial situation, but it's something to keep in mind. As stated by others, and documented widely online, you don't need to make payments on a loan or carry a card balance to build your credit history. Check your credit on a popular site, such as Credit Karma (No affiliation). There, you'll see a detailed breakdown of the different areas of your credit profile that matter; things like: The best thing I could recommend is get a credit line or credit card, and use it responsibly. Carrying a balance will waste money on interest, much like the car payment. Just having it and not over-using it (Or not using it at all) will 'build' your credit history. Of course, some institutions may close your account after X number of years of inactivity. With this in mind, I'd say it's safe to pay off the car loan. Read your agreement and make sure there aren't early termination / early payment fees for this. Edit: There have been notes in the comments section's of question/answer's here about concerns with getting apartment. My two cents here: Most apartments I've seen check your credit for negative marks. Having no credit history, and thus never missing a payment or having a judgement made against you, will likely be enough to get you into most normal-quality apartments, assuming the rest of your application / profile is in order, like: - Good references, if asked for them - At least 2.5x rent payment in gross income etc, things like that. If they really think you're a risk, they may ask for a larger deposit (Though I'm sure in some areas there may be restrictions on whether they can do this, or how much they can do it) and still let you rent there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e0b9a2e9015aeb08e040b219618558b", "text": "In the US, money talks and bullshit walks. You can skip any credit history requirement if you demonstrate your ability to pay in a very obvious way. Credit history is just a standardized way of weeding out people that cannot reliably pay, instead of having to listen to an individual's excuses about how the bank overdrafted their account five times while they were waiting for their friend to pay them back for bubble gum. If you can show up with a wad of cash, you can get the car, or the apartment, or the bank account without the troubles of everyone else. But you can begin building credit with a secured credit card pretty easily. This will be useful for things like utilities and sometimes jobs. Also, banks won't be opposed to giving you credit if you have a lot of money in an account with them. You should be able to maintain an exemption from all socioeconomic problems in the United States, solely due to your experience with money and assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dcbbcc78bd1561999720f4fd276ad02", "text": "Yeah I have credit cards now but his credit line got me jumped up from maybe a 200 to a 650 in a few months or a year or so. My bad I figured I posted it in the wrong sub! So if he cancels it, will this cause me to lose points? Considering the credit line is about 20K?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c35962088635faf13f84983276ec6936", "text": "I haven't had a credit card in fifteen years. I use nothing but my debit card. (I find the whole idea of credit on a micro scale loathsome.) I have yet to encounter a single problem doing so, other than a lower than usual credit score for not keeping 23(!!!) revolving lines of credit open, or that's the number CreditKarma tells me I need in order to be an optimal consumer. In an nutshell, no, you don't NEED one. There are reasons to have them, but no.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef8580168b4556ec04919cec08a719dc", "text": "\"Different states have different laws, check your local laws concerning credit. Some states even guarantee you to get one free credit report per year. If you recently apply for an apartment, a mortgage or denied a credit card or loan, you can usually get a free copy from whomever you authorized to pull your credit report. Sign up credit monitoring service, there are quite a few of these. Most credit card companies offer such service, Amex, Chase, Citibank, etc. It' costs around $10-$20 per month. If you sign up a service and pull your own credit report, it's considered a \"\"soft\"\" pull which won't affect your score negatively.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160c33cef70d54dbee73af39f0c42327", "text": "No. I have several that I haven't used in a year or so (legacy of the time when they gave you money to sign up :-)), and credit rating's something over 800 last I checked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4", "text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b96ae9015f0cd88dd0ad3d5b544622b9", "text": "Do you have the option of paying cash for the phone? To answer your question though: Essentially, you have to use credit RESPONSIBLY. That doesn't mean go get a slew of loans and pay them off. As Ratish said, a credit card is a good start. I basically buy everything with a card and then pay it off every month when the bill comes out. I actually have two and I alternate but that's getting nitpicky. It should be noted that simply getting a card won't help your score. In fact, it may go down initially as the inquiry and new account opening may have a negative effect. The positive effect will happen as you develop good payment behavior over time. One big thing you can do, in your case, is always pay your mobile bill on time. Having a good payment history with them will go a long way to prove you are responsible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a137feafa12e8c55808779a1912728fd", "text": "\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \"\"appropriate\"\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \"\"flight risk\"\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2bca858601b7bc24a317dbaf20d6a38", "text": "\"You have a lack of credit history. Lending is still tight since the recession and companies aren't as willing to take a gamble on people with no history. The secured credit card is the most direct route to building credit right now. I don't think you're going to be applicable for a department store card (pointless anyways and encourages wasteful spending) nor the gas card. Gas cards are credit cards, funded through a bank just like any ordinary credit card, only you are limited to gas purchases at a particular retailer. Although gas cards, department store cards and other limited usage types of credit cards have less requirements, in this post-financial crisis economy, credit is still stringent and a \"\"no history\"\" file is too risky for banks to take on. Having multiple hard inquiries won't help either. You do have a full-time job that pays well so the $500 deposit shouldn't be a problem for the secured credit card. After 6 months you'll get it back anyways. Just remember to pay off in full every month. After 6 months you'll be upgraded to a regular credit card and you will have established credit history.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce31e7752ac62c2cb7cf8c6e0c236329", "text": "Simply staying out of debt is not a good way of getting a good credit score. My aged aunt has never had a credit card, loan or mortgage, has always paid cash or cheque for everything, never failed to pay her utility bills on time. Her credit score is lousy because she has never had any debts to pay off so there is no credit history data for her. To the credit checking agencies she barely exists. To get a good score (UK) then get a few debts and pay them off on time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d8a11f7aa80ddcfd0cca4cc69810b00", "text": "Since we seem to be discussing credit score and credit history interchangeably, if I can add credit report as the third part of the puzzle, I have another point. Your credit score and credit report can be effective tools to notice identity theft or fraud in your name. Keeping track of your report will allow you to not only protect your good name (which is apparently in dispute here) but also those businesses who ultimately end up paying for the stolen goods or services.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfc9c5ef1521b95b5048561579618633", "text": "\"Why are banks all of a sudden providing people their credit scores for free? Because it is a really good idea. On an ABC Bank website, it has: \"\"Check your credit score for free\"\" button. You click it. Not only will it come up with a credit score, but it could also trigger a marketing workflow. If it is direct mail, email, or a phone call a banker could contact you for help with a debt product. This marketing could also be targeted, say a person with a high score could be targeted for a mortgage. A person with a low or medium score could be targeted for ways and products to improve their score. Now if you run XYZ bank and not do the same, you are losing a competitive advantage to banks that offer this. Not only will your customers be less happy, but you will lose a great marketing opportunities. Face it, the only people that worry about their credit score are people that are in the market to borrow. Which again, is more information. If you have someone that never checks their credit score, or has their credit frozen, then it is wise not to market to them debt products.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916", "text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d76c00feba56517fbd458f3b54de4739", "text": "\"My personal rule is to not loan money (or co-sign) for any amount that I am not willing to give away. It can go wrong in so many ways, and having a family or friend involved means making a \"\"business\"\" decision is difficult. If a bank won't loan the person the money, why should I? Being a co-signer is the same as borrowing the money in my name and giving it right over to the borrower. There might be great reasons to do it. I would probably sign a loan to keep my family alive or healthy, but no other reason. There are many ways to help without signing a loan. Give a room and a place to live, loan a car. The other thing is if you really truly believe in the borrower, it won't do long term damage to your credit or your financial goals, and you are the only resort; go ahead. I am thinking about helping a teenager afford their first car or student loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c68d17b243300bf223d276fc6c364f4", "text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea5ed56378c9936a96de6c4b4b832dca", "text": "Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family Taking out a loan for yourself is bad enough, but co-signing a loan is just plain stupid. Think about it, if the bank is asking for a co-signer its because they are not very confident that the applicant is going to be paying back the loan. So why would you then step up and say I'll pay back the loan if they don't, make me a co-signer please. Here is a list of things that people never think about when they cosign a loan for somebody. Now if you absolutely must co-sign a loan here is how I would do it. I, the co-signer would be the one who makes the payments to ensure that the loan was paid on time and I would be the one collecting the payment from the person who is getting the loan. Its a very simple way of preventing some of the worst situations that can arise and you should be willing to make the payments anyway after all thats what it means to cosign a loan. Your just turning things around and paying the loan upfront instead of paying after the applicant defaults and ruins every ones credit. (Source: user's own blog post Never co-sign a loan for someone, especially family)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "325b3734841f36f5f68aa1ba1902f580", "text": "I know this question has a lot of answers already, but I feel the answers are phrased either strongly against, or mildly for, co-signing. What it amounts down to is that this is a personal choice. You cannot receive reliable information as to whether or not co-signing this loan is a good move due to lack of information. The person involved is going to know the person they would be co-signing for, and the people on this site will only have their own personal preferences of experiences to draw from. You know if they are reliable, if they will be able to pay off the loan without need for the banks to come after you. This site can offer general theories, but I think it should be kept in mind that this is wholly a personal decision for the person involved, and them alone to make based on the facts that they know and we do not.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a83a30574625b35fba23c608b1b6053c", "text": "I concur with the other answers about not mixing family and money: the one whose loans are paid off second will be taking the credit risk of the other not paying/being able to pay. There may also be tax implications. That said, if you do still want to do this, I think there's a fairly straightforward way to account for the payments. With your scenario, your brother should make you a personal loan at some interest rate inbetween 5% and 10%. That loan would be tracked independently of the actual student loans. Any money that your brother transfers to you to pay off your loans, add to that personal loan, and later on once your loans are paid off you start repaying the loan to him and he uses the proceeds for his own loans. The interest rate will determine how the benefit of paying off the 10% loans is shared: if the rate is set at 10% then your brother will get all the benefit, if 5% you will get all the benefit, and 7.5% would roughly share it out. This means that you can still manage your own student loans separately. Your brother can choose how little or much to commit to the snowball rather than his own loans (of course he should first make the minimum payments on his own loans). Anything he does loan you benefits you both if we ignore the credit and tax issues - he gets more than the 5% interest on his own loans, and you pay less than the 10% interest on your loans. You'll need to track the payments each way on this personal loan and apply interest to it every so often, I'd suggest monthly (beware that the monthly equivalent of 5% annual interest is not 5%/12, because of compounding).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edba9615a6bb1cd4c4198604e9497c9d", "text": "If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f095485f8cb5da37475c27ba9a17d51", "text": "I say to always say yes when asked to loan money to a friend or family member as long as you have the money to do it with. That is the key: having th emoney to do it with. And - don't expect to get it back ever. If you do, great. When you don't, your expectation was met. Although not often, I've lent money to friends and most of the time have been paid back. $10, $300, more. For the times when I was not, I do remember but I don't hold it against the person. Money is only money, after all. Friends are precious and worthy of your aid, support, and respect. If they weren't, then one must ask if they are really a friend. - I have also had to borrow money once for a non-trivial amount. My family, who can easily afford it, refused but a friend helped me at a critical juncture. I offered to make a contract but my friend said no, pay me back when you can. I have tried to start paying back a couple of times but my friend refused telling me to wait until I was more financially stable. - If I am ever lucky enough to be in the position my friend is in, I will emulate this behavior and do the very same thing - and love doing it all the while.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b1152fdf8f30f8d0a612bb1a60bffda", "text": "I am sure that laws differ from state to state. My brother and I had to take over my dads finances due to his health. He had a vehicle that had a loan on it. We refinanced the vehicle and it was in our name. One of our family members needed a vehicle and offered to take over the payment. Our attorney advised us to be on the insurance policy with them and make sure if was paid correctly. We are in Indiana. I know it is hard to discuss finances with family members. However, if you co-signed the loan I think it would be wise to either have your name added to the insurance policy or at least have your brother show proof it has been paid. If you are not comfortable with that it may be a good idea to make sure the bank has your correct address and ask if they would notify you if insurance has lapsed. If your on the loan and there is no insurance at the very least if the vehicle was damaged you would still be responsible to pay the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646a544547af13b516d0c897e77d1e74", "text": "On a personal Loan Yes. On a business loan, it would depend on the Bank and they would like to understand the purpose of the loan and need it to be secured. They may not even grant such kind of business loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18f63457e8334538d77a5766629da7ed", "text": "If this isn't a case where you would be willing to forgive the debt if they can't pay, it's a business transaction, not a friend transaction. Establish exactly what the interest rate will be, what the term of the loan is, whether periodic payments are required, how much is covered by those payments vs. being due at the end of the term as a balloon payment, whether they can make additional payments to reduce the principal early... Get it all in writing and signed by all concerned before any money changes hands. Consider having a lawyer review the language before signing. If the loan is large enough that it might incur gift taxes, then you may want to go the extra distance to make it a real, properly documented, intra-family loan. To do this you must charge (of at least pay taxes on) at least a certain minimal interest rate, and they have to make regular payments (or you can gift them the payments but you still won't up paying tax on the interest income). In this case you definitely want a lawyer to draw up the papers, I think. There are services on the web Antioch specialize in helping to set this up properly, and which offer services such as bookkeeping and monthly billing (aT extra cost) to make it less hassle for the lender. If the loan will be structured as a mortgage on the borrower's house -- making the interest deductible for the borrower in the US -- there are additional forms that need to be filled. The services can help with that too, for appropriate fees. Again, this probably wants experts writing the agreement, to make sure it's properly written for where you and the borrower live. Caveat: all the above is assuming USA. Rules may be very different elsewhere. I've done a formal intractability mortgage -- mostly to avoid gift tax -- and it wasn't too awful a hassle. Your mileage will vary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67525a00d56b3e4c7396761c4f96f362", "text": "Either approach will put a strain on your friendship, unless you are willing to treat it as a gift which may or may not be returned rather than a loan. I agree that paying it direct to the dealer (or giving her a check that is made out to the dealer) avoids the risk of the money getting sidetracked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3665c97fc6df7c4109dafd1266605341", "text": "\"Yes. Because you co-signed the loan, you are responsible for the loan just as much as she was. When you co-sign a loan, you are essentially saying \"\"I will pay this loan if the other person can't.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64fb7a323214f50afbc01fecc4753d61", "text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c80accc613ec73f5527afe291d030d", "text": "\"The wording of this question is very confusing because \"\"primary signer\"\" would, in ordinary parlance, mean the person borrowing the money and the co-signer (not consigner) would mean the one who is guaranteeing the repayment of the loan: if the borrower does not pay, the co-signer is liable for making the payments. Whose name is on the title of the car? Who borrowed the money to buy the car? Is the loan in your name and your son co-signed the loan to induce the bank to loan you money to purchase the car, or is it the other way around, that your son borrowed the money and you co-signed the loan in order to induce the bank to loan your son the money? If the car title and the loan are in your name, are you defaulting on the loan and so your son is making the loan payments that should have come from you? Or is it that your son borrowed the money to buy the car, his name is on the title, he is making the payments, and you are no longer interested in backing him up in case he defaults and the bank comes after you for the money?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "532ccb785de284ab88f3b35849ce2e55", "text": "No. But the scenario is unrealistic. No bank will give the LLC any loan unless the members personally co-sign to guarantee it. In which case, the members become personally liable in addition to the LLC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47f824d42ed7ff0928853fa65f72d426", "text": "\"I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for. For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house. If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it. Point being is that you need to go after the asset. If there is no asset you need to go after you \"\"friend\"\". Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court. Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution. By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options. For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty. If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default. If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you. I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping. It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car. I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the \"\"friend\"\" still is around and trusts cosigner. I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the \"\"friend\"\". I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice. Seeking a lawyer is a joke. Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours. It isn't like you are suing a business or something. The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details. The other part is cosigning the loan. Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend? Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids. And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend. I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "896be0b7de9735410139e90a43cb3306", "text": "\"As an investment opportunity: NO. As a friendly assist with money you don't mind ever getting back, legal depending on amount. A few years back I was in the housing market myself and researching interest rates and mortgages. For one property I was very interested in, I would need about $4K extra in liquid cash to complete the down-payment. A pair of options I saw were a \"\"combo loan\"\" 15yr 4% interest for the house, 1yr 8% interest for the $4K. Alternately, the \"\"bank of mom and dad\"\" could offer the 4K loan for a much lower rate. The giftable limit where reporting is not required was $12,000 at the time I did the review. IRS requires personal loans to be counted as having interest at the commercial rate. Thus an interest free loan of $10K with commercial interest rate of 1% (for easy math) would be counted as a gift of $10,100 for that calendar year. Disclaimer: Ultimately, I did not use this approach and did not have it subjected to a legal review.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd08117069dd39c471f4e395776830a6", "text": "You are using interchangeably borrow/loan and gift. They are very different. For the mortgage company, they would prefer that the money from friends and family be a gift. If it is a loan, then you have an obligation to pay it back. If they see money added to your bank accounts in the months just before getting the loan, they will ask for the source of the money. Anything you claim as a gift will be required to be documented by you and the person making the gift. You don't want to lie about it, and have the other person lie about it. They will make you sign documents, if they catch you in a lie you can lose the loan, or be prosecuted for fraud. If the money from friends and family is a loan, the payments for the loan will impact the amount of money you can borrow. From the view of the IRS the gift tax only comes into play if during one calendar year a person makes a gift to somebody else of 14,000 or more. There are two points related to this. It is person-to-person. So if your dad gives you 14K, and your mom gives you 14K, and your dad gives your wife 14k and your mom gives your wife 14K; everything is fine. So two people can give 2 people 56K in one year. Please use separate checks to make it clear to the IRS. If somebody gives a gift above the exclusion limit for the year, they will have to complete IRS form 709. This essentially removes the excess amount from their life time exclusion, in other words from their estate. Nothing to worry about from the IRS. The bank wants to see the documentation. Also you are not a charity, so they can't claim it as a donation. Why do you have 6,000 in cash sitting around. The mortgage company will want an explanation for all large deposits so you better have a good explanation. From the IRS FAQ on Gift Taxes: What can be excluded from gifts? The general rule is that any gift is a taxable gift. However, there are many exceptions to this rule. Generally, the following gifts are not taxable gifts. Number 3 on the list is the one you care about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55bfc7c29e7dcdd310cf7e7ef83a0a2a", "text": "Think about Wall Street. It's the most highly paid occupation in the world and it's nothing but a casino. I don't think the article is saying that success is only luck, or that there aren't successes built far more on genius than luck, but that luck is the main factor in the majority of cases of great wealth.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d724a1c1594d6e523fb271b54f2175ab", "text": "When you pay off a loan early, you pay the remaining principal, and you save all of the remaining interest. So you do save on interest, but it's the interest you would have paid in the future, not the interest you have paid in the past. (Your remaining balance when you pay off the loan only includes the principal, not the projected interest.) Interest is a factor of the amount borrowed, the interest rate and the amount of time you borrow the money. The sooner you repay the money, the less interest you pay. Imagine if you had taken a 30 year loan at 4% interest but were allowed to make no payments until the loan term ended. If you waited 15 years to make your first payment, you wouldn't owe the same money as if you'd made payments every month. No, instead of owing ~$64k, you'd owe ~$182k, because you had borrowed $100k for 15 years (plus the interest due) rather than borrowing a declining sum. So that's why you don't get a refund on interest for previous months. If you had started with a 16 year loan, then you would have been paying more principal every month, and your monthly amount due would have been higher to reflect that. As you paid the principal off faster, the interest each month would drop faster. Paying a huge portion of the principal at the end of the loan is not the same as steadily paying it down in the same time frame. You will pay a lot more interest in the former case, and rightfully so. It might help to consider a credit card payment in comparison. If you run up a balance and pay only the minimum each month, you pay a lot of interest over time, because your principal goes down slowly. If you suddenly pay off your credit card, you don't have to pay any more interest, but you also don't get any interest back for previous months. That's because the interest accrued each month is based on your current balance, just like your mortgage. The minimum payments are calculated differently, but the interest accrued each month uses essentially the same mechanism.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f595b1e50b0683b20aa07a69001c969c", "text": "\"One way to think of the typical fixed rate mortgage, is that you can calculate the balance at the end of the month. Add a month's interest (rate times balance, then divide by 12) then subtract your payment. The principal is now a bit less, and there's a snowball effect that continues to drop the principal more each month. Even though some might object to my use of the word \"\"compounding,\"\" a prepayment has that effect. e.g. you have a 5% mortgage, and pay $100 extra principal. If you did nothing else, 5% compounded over 28 years is about 4X. So, if you did this early on, it would reduce the last payment by about $400. Obviously, there are calculators and spreadsheets that can give the exact numbers. I don't know the rules for car loans, but one would actually expect them to work similarly, and no, you are not crazy to expect that. Just the opposite.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e15299fbe06568509541ecddbe6850c", "text": "A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. This sounds like you either got a bad car loan (i.e. pay all the interest first before paying any principal), a crooked lender, or you were misunderstood. Most consumer loans (both car loans and mortgages) reduce the amount of interest you pay (not the _percentage) as you pay down principal. The amount of interest of each payment is computed by multiplying the balance owed by the periodic interest rate (e.g. if your loan is at 12% annual interest you'll pay 1% of the remaining principal each month). Although that's the most common loan structure, there are others that are more complex and less friendly to the consumer. Typically those are used when credit is an issue and the lender wants to make sure they get as much interest up front as they can, and can recover the principal through a repossession or foreclosure. It sounds like you got a precomputed interest loan. With these loans, the amount of interest you'd pay if you paid through the life of the loan is computed and added to the principal to get a total loan balance. You are required to pay back that entire amount, regardless of whether you pay early or not. You could still pay it early just to get that monkey off your back, but you may not save any interest. You are not crazy to think that you should be able to save on interest, though, as that's how normal loans work. Next time you need to borrow money, make sure you understand the terms of the loan (and if you don't, ask someone else to help you). Or just save up cash and don't borrow money ;)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c00d295dd92b63c56bd599f579d7ac83", "text": "\"So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. Say I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years. By the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank This is incorrect thinking. On a 30 year loan, at year 15 about 2/3's of the total interest to be paid has been paid, and the principal is about 1/3 lower than the original loan amount. You may want to play with some amortization calculators that are freely available to see this in action. If you were to pay off the balance, at that point, you would avoid paying the remaining 1/3 of interest. Consider a 100K 30 year mortgage at 4.5% In month two the payment breaks down with $132 going to principal, and $374 going to interest. If, in month one, you had an extra $132 and directed it to principal, you would save $374 in interest. That is a great ROI and why it is wonderful to get out of debt as soon as possible. The trouble with this is of course, is that most people can barely afford the mortgage payment when it is new so lets look at the same situation in year 15. Here, $271 would go to principal, and $235 to interest. So you would have to come up with more money to save less interest. It is still a great ROI, but less dramatic. If you understand the \"\"magic\"\" of compounding interest, then you can understand loans. It is just compounding interest in reverse. It works against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "832a5559bcaa52f284e96bd250ec057f", "text": "\"Your thinking is unfortunately incorrect; an amortising loan (as opposed to interest only loans) pay down, or amortise, the principal with each payment. This means that the amount that is owed at prepayment will always be less than the total borrowed, and is also why some providers make a charge for prepayment. The \"\"fairness\"\" arguments that you make predicated on that misunderstanding are, therefore, incorrect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab635d81d1df649f07e7120320dd0755", "text": "Forget about terms. Think about loans in terms of months. To simplify things, let's consider a $1000 loan with .3% interest per month. This looks like a ten month term, but it's equally reasonable to think about it on a month-to-month basis. In the first month, you borrowed $1000 and accrued $3 interest. With the $102 payment, that leaves $901 which you borrow for another month. So on and so forth. The payoff after five payments would by $503.54 ($502.03 principal plus $1.51 interest). You'd save $2.99 in interest after paying $13.54. The reason why most of the interest was already paid is that you already did most of the borrowing. You borrowed $502.03 for six months and about $100 each for five, four, three, two, and one month. So you borrowed about $4500 months (you borrowed $1000 for the first month, $901 for the second month, etc.). The total for a ten month $1000 loan is about $5500 months of borrowing. So you've done 9/11 of the borrowing. It's unsurprising that you've paid about 9/11 of the interest. If you did this as a six month loan instead, then the payments look different. Say You borrow $1000 for one month. Then 834 for one month. So on and so forth. Adding that together, you get about $168.50 * 21 or $3538.50 months borrowed. Since you only borrow about 7/9 as much, you should pay 7/9 the interest. And if we adding things up, we get $10.54 in interest, about 7/9 of $13.54. That's how I would expect your mortgage to work in the United States (and I'd expect it to be similar elsewhere). Mortgages are pretty straight-jacketed by federal and state regulations. I too once had a car loan that claimed that early payment didn't matter. But to get rid of the loan, I made extra payments. And they ended up crediting me with an early release. In fact, they rebated part of my last payment. I saved several hundred dollars through the early release. Perhaps your loan did not work the same way. Perhaps it did. But in any case, mortgages don't generally work like you describe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64b5152109801f6c7a91e2afffa778a4", "text": "\"Loans do not carry an \"\"interest balance\"\". You can not pay off \"\"all the interest\"\". The only way to reduce the interest to zero is to pay off the loan. Otherwise, the interest due each month is some percentage of the outstanding principal. Think of it from the bank's perspective: they've invested some amount of money in you, and they expect a return on that investment in the form of interest. If you somehow paid in 16 years all the interest the bank expected to receive in 30 years, you've been scammed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e06c59eea8e3f8455252689538847b3", "text": "\"For the mortgage, you're confusing cause and effect. Loans like mortgages generally have a very simple principle behind them: at any given time, the interest charged at that time is the product of the amount still owing and the interest rate. So for example on a mortgage of $100,000, at an interest rate of 5%, the interest charged for the first year would be $5,000. If you pay the interest plus another $20,000 after the first year, then in the second year the interest charge would be $4,000. This view is a bit of an over-simplification, but it gets the basic point across. [In practice you would actually make payments through the year so the actual balance that interest is charged on would vary. Different mortgages would also treat compounding slightly differently, e.g. the interest might be added to the mortgage balance daily or monthly.] So, it's natural that the interest charged on a mortgage reduces year-by-year as you pay off some of the mortgage. Mortgages are typically setup to have constant payments over the life of the mortgage (an \"\"amortisation schedule\"\"), calculated so that by the end of the planned mortgage term, you'll have paid off all of the principal. It's a straightforward effect of the way that interest works in general that these schedules incorporate higher interest payments early on in the mortgage, because that's the time when you owe more money. If you go for a 15-year mortgage, each payment will involve you paying off significantly more principal each time than with a 30-year mortgage for the same balance - because with a 15-year mortgage, you need to hit 0 after 15 years, not 30. So since you pay off the principal faster, you naturally pay less interest even when you just compare the first 15 years. In your case what you're talking about is paying off the mortgage using the 30-year payments for the first 15 years, and then suddenly paying off the remaining principal with a lump sum. But when you do that, overall you're still paying off principal later than if it had been a 15-year mortgage to begin with, so you should be charged more interest, because what you've done is not the same as having a 15-year mortgage. You still will save the rest of the interest on the remaining 15 years of the term, unless there are pre-payment penalties. For the car loan I'm not sure what is happening. Perhaps it's the same situation and you just misunderstood how it was explained. Or maybe it's setup with significant pre-payment penalties so you genuinely don't save anything by paying early.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb", "text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2709f354fcd1ff6a1eb9b1c54e51016e", "text": "\"If you take a loan, you make a contract with your lender, let's call them \"\"bank\"\" (even if it might not be a real bank). This loan contract contains an agreed-upon way of paying back the loan. Both sides agreed upon these conditions. Any change of it (like paying back early) needs the consent of both sides. So, in general, no, you cannot just pay back everything earlier unless the other side accepts this change of the contract. Consider it from the bank's point of view: They want to earn money by getting the interest you have to pay when you pay back everything nice and slowly. It is their business. They plan on these expected revenues etc. So if, for whatever reason, you have to pay back the whole remaining loan at once, you create a revenue loss for the bank and are liable for this financial damage. In German the term for this is \"\"Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung\"\" which translates to \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" or \"\"acceleration fee\"\". You just have to pay it, so in the end you come out like if you were paying back the loan in the agreed-upon fashion. However, many loan contracts contain the option to pay back early at specific points in time in specific amounts and under specific conditions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f225d65a2aee4618d33e468bb0ff6024", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b40bf9b408b321ec92dc54da68319878", "text": "You are expecting, that if you pay off a 30 mortgage after 16 years, you should be charged the same amount of interest as someone who had a 16 year mortgage for the same amount and with the same interest rate. This isn't correct, and here's why: the person with the 16 year mortgage paid it off faster than you. They paid more each month and the size of their loan shrunk faster than yours. After 15 years they had paid off a LOT more than you. You paid a lump sum after 16 years, but at this point, the extra money which they had paid had been in the banks hands for a long time. You caught up with them then, but you had been behind them for all of the previous years. On the other hand, you owed the same amount in each of those years as the person who took out a 30 year mortgage and didn't prepay. Therefore you paid the same amount of interest as this person, not the first person. If you could arrange in advance a loan where you made the same payment as you did for 16 years, then paid the balance in a lump sum, then you would have paid exactly what you did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6702878eced62b5b1a1c2ff83ce6aba8", "text": "\"You seem to think that you are mostly paying interest in the first year because of the length of the loan period. This is skipping a step. You are mostly paying interest in the first year because your principle (the amount you owe) is highest in the first year. You do pay down some principle in that first year; this reduces the principle in the second year, which in turn reduces the interest owed. Your payments stay the same; so the amount you pay to principle goes up in that second year. This continues year after year, and eventually you owe almost no interest, but are making the same payments, so almost all of your payment goes to principle. It is a bit like \"\"compounded interest\"\", but it is \"\"compounded principle reduction\"\"; reducing your principle increases the rate you reduce it. As you didn't reduce your principle until the 16th year, this has zero impact on the interest you owed in the first 15 years. Now, for actual explicit numbers. You owe 100,000$ at 3% interest. You are paying your mortgage annually (keeps it simpler) and pay 5000$ per year. The first year you put 3000$ against interest and 2000$ against principle. By year 30, you put 145$ against interest and 4855$ against principle. because your principle was tiny, your interest was tiny.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6a5c235f65fc1356e1a56bb1815957f7", "text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "673ef9d7a042b643fa2d062c000f88ed", "text": "I believe this argument is most often used when considering which debts to pay back first, or when there are other options available such as investment options, building up an emergency fund, or saving for a large purchase. In that case, it's simply justifying making minimum payments and paying more over the life of the loan in exchange for larger liquidity in the present. Unfortunately, when it comes to choosing between which debts to pay (e.g. My mom pays more than the minimum on her car because she can't deduct auto loan interest, despite her mortgage carrying a higher interest rate), it's only beneficial if the tax savings offsets the interest savings difference. The formula for that is: tax bracket > (1 - (target loan interest rate / mortgage interest rate)) That said, most people don't think in the long term, either by natural shortsightedness, or by necessity (need to have an emergency fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9a776d08c206dacd7cec3133072133", "text": "\"With (1), it's rather confusing as to where \"\"interest\"\" refers to what you're paying and where it refers to what you're being paid, and it's confusing what you expect the numbers to work out to be. If you have to pay normal interest on top of sharing the interest you receive, then you're losing money. If the lending bank is receiving less interest than the going market rate, then they're losing money. If the bank you've deposited the money with is paying more than the going market rate, they're losing money. I don't see how you imagine a scenario where someone isn't losing money. For (2) and (3), you're buying stocks on margin, which certainly is something that happens, but you'll have to get an account that is specifically for margin trading. It's a specific type of credit with specific rules, and you if you want to engage in this sort of trading, you should go through established channels rather than trying to convert a regular loan into margin trading. If you get a personal loan that isn't specifically for margin trading, and buy stocks with the money, and the stocks tank, you can be in serious trouble. (If you do it through margin trading, it's still very risky, but not nearly as risky as trying to game the system. In some cases, doing this makes you not only civilly but criminally liable.) The lending bank absolutely can lose if your stocks tank, since then there will be nothing backing up the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ea816f8a5cdceb7b98027f7392c287e", "text": "They changed the way trailing interest is calculated back in 2008 if I recall correctly. The idea at the time was that the interest charges to the customer were somewhat less, but it made trying to get a payoff quote a PITA. They used to take payments for more than the current balance due at that time, however. I can't provide any insight as to why they won't now, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3033c1aeae2727c1f58c279537fe2e8d", "text": "Actually the extra payment comes off the back end of the mortgage. So technically the mortgage is ony reduced one month. However, banks always recalculate the amortization table when the last payment is paid or a payoff amount is requested. There is a difference between the two situations but that is a minor amount. The 30 year note offers flexibility that the 15 does not. Pick one, save money-15 year, get flexibility-30 year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "099c14b11193274f3e43f00af6bda3a5", "text": "\"I really does depend on the bank. Here is a fairly typical page on interest calculations. The key phrase is: Interest is calculated on each day's final balance and paid monthly. So at the end of each day the amount of interest is calculated for that day, based on how much is in the account. At the end of the month the amount of interest for each day is totalled, and added to the account balance. That calculation is extremely similar to duffbeer703's \"\"compound monthly using the average balance for the month\"\", provided the account doesn't have tiered interest rates and the balance doesn't go negative. The software that banks use is easily sophisticated enough to handle that kind of calculation. Your bank should be able to give you a statement of exactly how the interest is calculated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebadaee85f439ee26fd00453824ae25f", "text": "\"Tricky question. Many car leasing companies like to quote payments by the week or twice a month to make the car sound cheaper to carry. If the lease or loan is calculated such that interest accrues monthly \"\"not in advance\"\" then any payments made prior to the date on which the interest is calculated will reduce the balance and therefore the interest. However, many loans and leases are calculated at the beginning for the whole life of the agreement. In that case, splitting each payment in half doesn't do anything to reduce the interest built in to the payments because the interest is calculated \"\"in advance\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a7a97238901b51b69c23d0c538c7d28", "text": "Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty. Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas, buyers had a choice of This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eacc0213a87e88848b0b53f9b49d628e", "text": "\"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed. But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe. Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%. Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so. And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice. So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing \"\"potential\"\" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest. Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever. The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too. Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%. Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her. But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice. (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move. A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk. She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever. (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen. Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets. Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either. Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value. Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it. But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding. If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments. If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d4b58afaadd9a66f918ccf05b751546", "text": "As usual it depends, but fundamentally, an interest rate is just a function of a party's creditworthiness and the length of time the money is being lent out for. So, no, if your credit entitles you to a 3% APR on a 60 month term, then it should entitle you to a better interest rate over a 30 month term. Perhaps not double, but better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8481a2039b2bc140fa374e80e6830c32", "text": "If there's no prepayment penalty, and if the extra is applied to principal rather than just toward later payments, then paying extra saves you money. Paying more often, by itself, doesn't. Paying early within a single month (ie, paying off the loan at the same average rate) doesn't save enough you be worth considering", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4162c5533d3365d1aae1ce002dad60", "text": "Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbb5cf86b6ab4784bc588a20e2d96659", "text": "Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e37a0bedf04922bb9fa43fd2c0e00b4", "text": "The tax is only payable on the gain you make i.e the difference between the price you paid and the price you sold at. In your cse no tax is payable if you sell at the same price you bought at", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08fb943439e601512e5c1a0665e38377", "text": "\"recently there has been an increase in Companies charging a Credit Card surcharge, the current law does not fix the amount so therefore company's can set there own surcharges, which means you can pay different surcharges at different places. In the \"\"Money\"\" magazine a couple of months ago there was an interesting article that discussed a possible cap that was going to be introduced to cut down on the fluctuations of Credit Card surcharges as some places are generating revenue by abusing the Credit Card surcharge. Something to keep in mind is to ensure when using a Debit card you are not charged the surcharge. some businesses will treat the Debit card the same as a Credit Card.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9683095ddab1e14148cdb3672a3ab112", "text": "You should start by calling the clinic and asking them to tell you how the visit was coded. Some clinics have different billing codes based on the complexity of the visit. If you have one thing you are seeing the doctor about, that could be coded differently than if you have 4 things you are seeing the doctor about. In fact, even if you are there just for one ailment, but while you are there you happen to ask a few quick questions about other possible ailments, the doctor could decide to use the billing code for the higher complexity. If when speaking to the billing department it is determined that the visit is using a higher complexity billing code (and a higher charge as a result), you could then request that it be re-coded with the lower complexity visit. Realize if you request that they will probably have to first get approval from the doctor that saw you. Note: I am basing this answer on first hand experience about 6 months ago in Illinois, where the situation I described happened to me because I asked some unrelated questions about other possible ailments at the end of a visit to an after hours clinic. The billing department explained that my visit was coded for 4 issues. (3 of them were quick questions I asked about at the end of the visit, one of which she referred me to another doctor. My additional questions probably extended the visit by 3-4 minutes.) In my case I never got the bill reduced, mainly due to my own laziness and my knowing that I would hit my deductible anyway this year. Of course I can't say for sure if this is what happened in your case, or even if this practice is widespread. This was the first and only time in my life that I encountered it. As a side note, your primary doctor would likely rarely ever bill you for a more complex visit, as it likely wouldn't lead to much repeat business. As for your last question regarding your credit: if the provider decides to lower the price, and you pay the lower price, this in no way can affect your credit. Surprising Update: When I called the billing office months ago, I had asked if they could confirm the code with the doctor, and I was told they would look into it. I never heard back, never followed up, and assumed that was the end of it. Well, today I got a call back (months later) and was informed that they had re-coded the visit which will result in a lower charge! It's still pending the insurance adjustment but at some point in the future I expect to receive either a credit on my next statement or a check in the mail. (The price difference pre-insurance in my case has gone from $359 to $235.) Update: I did receive a check for the difference. The check was dated July 20, 2016, which is just over 2 months after the phone call informing me I would receive it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23529089049f2d47c00e4cc14c60e42e", "text": "Some doctors will give folks who are not covered by insurance a price break. If that describes you, you could ask. But if you didn't discuss the price in advance, that isn't the doctor's fault, any more than it would be the mechanic's fault if you asked for auto service without getting an estimate first. Consider it a cheap lesson in not making assumptions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318d1517ba7429f4cad193d5cae9c59d", "text": "If you are disputing the size of the charge for specific services, like you think that they overcharged for lab work, you can try disputing it with the business office staff at the doctor's office. If, on the other hand, you just think that the overall bill is too expensive then you really only have one option. You can ask if they will reduce the bill for you. Most hospitals and clinics I've dealt with have programs set up for this, but you usually access them by filling out paperwork demonstrating financial hardship (along with supporting documents). It never hurts to ask. But with the services already rendered the only person with an interest in reducing the bill is you. The reduction, if any, will probably depend on what the clinic thinks your ability to pay is compared with the cost to them of pursuing you for payment, as well as the amount of funding they have for bill reduction. When I worked in the financial services office of a hospital a $400 bill would not even have been reviewed for discounting-- the balance would be too low to devote staff time to reviewing. It's frustrating, and even asking in advance might not have given you accurate (or any!) information on what the cost of the visit would be, so your ability to shop around is limited. Unfortunately, that doesn't give you any additional options in this case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf5e1d8139cc9fd9701f60f3b7da9db8", "text": "To answer the specific question of whether you can get the bill reduced without hurting your credit, yes, as long as the bill never goes to collections, there's no reason it should ever show up on your credit report. Will they reduce your bill without sending it to collections first? Maybe. All you can do is ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980e72af287f4721cab7f12cd052186e", "text": "You will often receive a lower bill if you simply wait for a second or third billing statement. I was once given the advice to never pay a medical bill until after they had sent three notices, because they will almost certainly reduce the amount due. Sounds crazy, right? I have excellent credit, so the idea of risking it by ignoring bills disturbed me greatly, and I scoffed at the advice. I then had a similar experience to you, and decided to take the advice. By the third statement, the bill was reduced to less than half of the original, with zero intervention on my part. I then paid it without any impact to my credit whatsoever. I've since done that every time I receive healthcare services, and the bill is always reduced on subsequent statements, generally to less than half of the original bill. Sometimes it's because insurance finally got around to paying. Sometimes a credit is mysteriously added. Sometimes line items disappear without explanation. (Line items sometimes appear over time, too, but the overall balance generally goes down.) I don't know the reason for it, but it works. This has happened with a variety of providers, so it's not just one company that does it. Granted, I never called to negotiate the price, so I can't say if I would've gotten a better deal by doing that. I like it because it requires no time or effort on my part, and it has greatly reduced my medical bills with zero impact to my credit. I only have personal anecdotes to back it up, but it's worked for me.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "985c27490a1fc20d8f94bcadedf22034", "text": "Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective. Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is. I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients. Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast. One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years. The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation. Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company. You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses. The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill. Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours. If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution. A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good. From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever. You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement. If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider. For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service. Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves. Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18d9cbc00c698170d9acdf0c488dd88c", "text": "If you read all that paperwork they made you fill out at the emergency room, there is probably something in there explicitly stating that you owe any bills you rack up regardless of what happens with the insurance company. They generally have a disclaimer that filing for you with your insurance company is a courtesy service they offer, but they are not obliged to do it. Ultimately, you are responsible for your bills even if the provider slow-billed you. Sorry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4d0c174c50cc545ba42074ac6553474", "text": "If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b05aaea6f5def5d0f295abd38d46e00c", "text": "The price the provider charges you is the amount he would like to get for his services. Let's take an example, you do a blood test at a lab, and they charge you 1200.00$ If you have insurance, and the provider has a contract with that insurance (meaning 'they take them'), the contract limits what they can charge and what the will get. For the example, that might be 21.56$. This is what the insurance pays them (or what you pay them, if you have deductible). Note that if you have no insurance, you owe them 1200.00$. They are typically willing to negotiate that you only pay maybe 850.00$, but it still will be much higher than the insurance price. Why? The reason is that the insurance-agreed payment of 21.56$ does not cover their cost (but the insurance forces them to make that contract or basically be out of business). Let's say for example they need 26.56$ to make a living on it; so they lose 5.00$ on every insured customer. One in 235 customers has no insurance, and his price is calculated as 26.56+235*5.00 = ~1200.00$, so his bill covers the losses for all insured 'under-payers' (all numbers are examples made up to illustrate the math the provider does). My bloodwork typically comes between 800 and 1400, and gets reduced to around 20: so the numbers are not completely off. The ratio and concept works for doctors and hospitals the same, just not as significant a difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "292946fb58549afbb477fdc08898aa28", "text": "Call them back and insist on speaking only with a supervisor and politely ask for their License Number and NAIC Number. When asked why reply that you are going to contact your state's insurance division and find out what recourse, if any, you might have. Merely asking for the numbers will let them know that you intend to escalate this matter; chances are that yet another supervisor will be required to rectify this situation. Companies DO NOT empower the initial representatives to resolve serious issues. It can be a tortuous path to a resolution but you must persevere. It is difficult to remove yourself and be objective but your anger will defeat you. Your agent should be on your side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6556782b39b76a1797d32ea3c47cadc", "text": "I'm a business law student, so medical stuff isn't really my specialty. I'll share with you what I know though. First, as to the legality, I'm not aware of anything making it illegal for them to consider their business with you concluded. Absent any contract between you and the doctor, it seems to me that you agreed to pay them in cash. If I was the business, I'd assume our business had been concluded as well. As for any contracts between the insurance company and the doctor's office, as far as I know, that's between them. That wouldn't give you standing to sue the doctor. I'm unfamiliar with a patient submitting insurance claims, but if that's something you are allowed to do with your insurance company and all you need is more information, submit a request for your medical records to the doctor. Under United States law, your medical records are yours. You have a right to receive a copy of them. Keep in mind though that the doctor's office may charge you a small copying fee to cover expenses they incur while making a copy for you. As far as complaining, I would suggest your local Better Business Bureau. Each state generally has a medical board which oversees doctors. You might lodge a complaint with them as well. I hope this helps. Keep in mind that I'm not an attorney. This is not legal advice. This is only what I personally would do if I were in your situation. You can and should consult an attorney who is licensed to practice law in your particular jurisdiction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a7e6714172567de547d1bb7a74903d", "text": "\"What is the right way to handle this? Did you check the forms? Did the form state $0 tax due on the FTB LLC/Corp form (I'm guessing you operate as LLC/Corp, since you're dealing with the Franchise Tax)? The responsibility is ultimately yours. You should cross check all the numbers and verify that they're correct. That said, if the CPA filled the forms incorrectly based on your correct data - then she made a mistake and can be held liable. CPA filing forms from a jurisdiction on the other end of the country without proper research and knowledge may be held negligent if she made a grave mistake. You can file a law suit against the CPA (which will probably trigger her E&O insurance carrier who'll try to settle if there's a good chance for your lawsuit to not be thrown away outright), or complain to the State regulatory agency overseeing CPAs in the State of her license. Or both. Am I wrong for expecting the CPA should have properly filled out and filed my taxes? No, but it doesn't shift the responsibility from you. How can I find out if the CPA has missed anything else? Same as with doctors and lawyers - get a second opinion. Preferably from a CPA licensed in California. You and only you are responsible for your taxes. You may try to pin the penalties and interest on the CPA if she really made a mistake. California is notorious for very high LLC/Corp franchise tax (cost of registering to do business in the State). It's $800 a year. You should have read the forms and the instructions carefully, it is very prominent. It is also very well discussed all over the Internet, any search engine would pop it up for you with a simple \"\"California Franchise Tax for LLC/Corp\"\" search. CA FTB is also very aggressive in assessing and collecting the fee, and the rules of establishing nexus in CA are very broad. From your description it sounds like you were liable for the Franchise tax in CA, since you had a storage facility in CA. You may also be liable for sales taxes for that period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7203484b828e5aa78784765e4e0261a8", "text": "\"I work for a health billing company. It is completely the provider's responsibility to bill your health insurance in a timely manner if they have your health insurance information on file (it sounds like they did). If you can gather a copy of your EOB (Explanation of Benefits) from your health insurance, it will likely say something to the extent of: \"\"claim was submitted after the timely filing limit, therefore no payment was made. The patient is not liable for the remaining balance.\"\" Don't let the hospital/physician bully you into paying for something they should have submitted to the insurance in the first place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f016fadb4c6631eec30cfa729732dcd", "text": "\"You should definitely read through that contract front to back multiple times, making sure you understand every word. Voice your concern to the gym. Explain why you feel you're being cheated. Best case: they waive the fee. Worse case: you leave bad reviews all over social media, explaining the \"\"surprise fee\"\" practice, and *then* they waive the fee. Very worst case: The gym refuses to waive the fee, you threaten legal action. They're probably going to waive the fee then. I don't forsee any circumstance where you actually have to take them to court. I'd ask /r/legaladvice for sure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0b00a2a18d414c339b276f55666b579", "text": "Ben Miller offers you sounds advice. However, if it comes down to it I would reach out to a lawyer to negotiate this for you. If what you are presenting is true then you could easily sue them for the damages incurred. I have been in a similar situation and unfortunately using the lawyers is what was required to get the solution resolved. Based on my previous experience a simple letter from a local lawyer office would get this dropped pretty quick and should cost you around $150. Best of luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "857974453afa724ad8ac67c7e3956c66", "text": "In one of your comments you say: Even if the pharmacy is not in the insurance provider network? This is why you got the check instead of your insurance company. I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and recently my wife underwent a procedure in the hospital, where one of the physicians involved was not in my providers network. I got a letter from the physicians office stating that since they are out of network, the standard practice was for BCBS to issue the check to me, rather than to the provider. I received the check and made the payment. The main contention is the difference in price, and that is what you need to discuss with both the pharmacy (actual billing) and your insurance company (paid benefits).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6cd27e3c2f8b12e4334eb3d747c96c3", "text": "The hospital likely has a contract with your insurance company which makes them obligated to bill the insurance before billing you! I had a similar occurrence that was thrown out when my insurance company provided a copy of a contract with the hospital to the judge. So if there is an agreement they must file with the insurance in timely manner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109f79ddb1608c4f2afbaa19e4ee08cc", "text": "To me this is a simple cost/benefit analysis... I'm guessing you will spend a whole lot more time and effort trying to fight the collection agency than the $55 is worth. In this case I would just go ahead, pay it and be done with it. Had the amount been higher, this would change. But that's me; you should do your own analysis based on your circumstances (including how much it's worth to you to be right) and let that inform your decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dee3bd7391f7fa666fa9ca7b4777d5f", "text": "This has a straightforward answer. It's likely that your doctor and the hospital have no responsibility to ensure that your insurance claim is filed in a timely manner. They bill you whether you or they get reimbursed by insurance, or not. The insurance company is more than happy not to pay you any way they can. Sorry if this is harsh, but it's up to you to follow through. See also here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10dad58de53089d15cf755545b887fc9", "text": "\"There really isn't any good ways that I'm aware of. (The exception is in New York or California, where hospitals must post prices.) The law sets price floors on many procedures by setting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. As a result, the \"\"list price\"\" for a given procedure is dramatically inflated, and various health insurers negotiate rates somewhere in the middle. I'd recommend talking to the business offices or financial counselors at medical groups that you do business with. Ask about \"\"self pay discounts\"\" or other programs appropriate for folks in your position.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9b7094cbe852a7f8c2f98dfcf51e0655", "text": "\"When I receive a check from a customer whom I previously sent an invoice, I go to the customer report for that customer, click on the link \"\"Invoice\"\" for that invoice, then click on the Pay Invoice button (very far right side). I then do a customer report and see that there is no balance (meaning all the invoices have been paid). I don't process invoices using the same method you do. Instead I go to Business -> Customer -> Process Payment. From there I can select the applicable customer, and a list of unpaid invoices will come up. I've never experienced the issue you've described. On a related topic: are you posting your invoices? From experience that has caused issues for me; when you post the invoice it should show up in your Accounts Receivable (or whichever account you've designated), and after you process the payment the A/R should go down accordingly. When posting your invoice, you specify which account it gets posted to: So that account should show a balance once you have posted it: Then, when a client pays you, your cash will go up, and A/R will go down.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7", "text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec9bbffb3de74756544e9883b0955746", "text": "Just FYI for the benefit of future users. Haven't been paid yet nor have I paid but some interesting facts. I decided to sign the contract with the person who approached me. The contract seemed harmless whereby I only transfer money once I retrieve the funds. Thanks to your comments here I also understood that I must make sure the funds really cleared in my account and can never be cancelled before I transfer anything. He gave me the information of the check that matched my previous employer and made sense as it was a check issues just after I had left my job and the state. I did not used the contact details he provided me, but rather found the direct contact details of the go to person in my last institution and contacted them. I still haven't been able to reclaim the funds, but that is due to internal problems between the state comptroller and my institution. Will come back to update if I am ever successful, but the bottom line is that it is probably not a scam. I am waiting for the final resolution of the case before I post the name of the company which approached me (if it is at all OK per the discussion board rules)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a4e7fc0bf4e90711a42264e05be3146", "text": "I believe the appropriate recourse in this scenario is to bring a court case for breach of contract. The 1p repricing issue has been admitted as an error out of scope of the purpose of the software.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b032d3617b0cb738bf35e3604308a83b", "text": "You would need to use Trading Accounts. You can enable this, File->Properties->Account settings tab, and check Use Trading Accounts. For more details see the following site: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adbd26a148ea4692bd89917533e0a3ab", "text": "\"First of all, it's quite common-place in GnuCash (and in accounting in general, I believe) to have \"\"accounts\"\" that represent concepts or ideas rather than actual accounts at some institution. For example, my personal GnuCash book has a plethora of expense accounts, just made up by me to categorize my spending, but all of the transactions are really just entries in my checking account. As to your actual question, I'd probably do this by tracking such savings as \"\"negative expenses,\"\" using an expense account and entering negative numbers. You could track grocery savings in your grocery expense account, or if you want to easily analyze the savings data, for example seeing savings over a certain time period, you would probably want a separate Grocery Savings expense account. EDIT: Regarding putting that money aside, here's an idea: Let's say you bought a $20 item that was on sale for $15. You could have a single transaction in GnuCash that includes four splits, one for each of the following actions: decrease your checking account by $20, increase your expense account by $20, decrease your \"\"discount savings\"\" expense account by $5, and increase your savings account (where you're putting that money aside) by $5.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c12efadd7fee350ffa0bd773c7bcd8f", "text": "Unfortunately, there is no facility to do bulk transaction edits in GnuCash, so you are out of luck for your existing hundred. (I don't know whether there is a way to initially import a transaction as split.) However, once you have entered this split once, it can be used as a template for new transactions, using autocomplete or by entering it in the Scheduled Transaction Editor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa1f9c1214d7c33fb2a1e73c46fcb482", "text": "\"You don't. No one uses vanilla double entry accounting software for \"\"Held-For-Trading Security\"\". Your broker or trading software is responsible for providing month-end statement of changes. You use \"\"Mark To Market\"\" valuation at the end of each month. For example, if your cash position is -$5000 and stock position is +$10000, all you do is write-up/down the account value to $5000. There should be no sub-accounts for your \"\"Investment\"\" account in GNUCash. So at the end of the month, there would be the following entries:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f60f3491884525065cfe44ca428df27", "text": "Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5ac2c4ff3c5d1c545838bec51ac3bb8", "text": "\"Other responses have focused on getting you software to use, but I'd like to attempt your literal question: how are such transactions managed in systems that handle them? I will answer for \"\"double entry\"\" bookkeeping software such as Quicken or GnuCash (my choice). (Disclaimer: I Am Not An Accountant and accountants will probably find error in my terminology.) Your credit card is a liability to you, and is tracked using a liability account (as opposed to an asset account, such as your bank accounts or cash in your pocket). A liability account is just like an asset except that it is subtracted from rather than added to your total assets (or, from another perspective, its balance is normally negative; the mathematics works out identically). When you make a purchase using your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from the liability account (increasing the liability) to the expense account for your classification of the expense. When you make a payment on your credit card, the transaction you record transfers money from your checking account (for example) to the credit card account, reducing the liability. Whatever software you choose for tracking your money, I strongly recommend choosing something that is sufficiently powerful to handle representing this as I have described (transfers between accounts as the normal mode of operation, not simply lone increases/decreases of asset accounts).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b125836234326ebb654d8145fa9fad", "text": "\"Fees & liabilities Yes, the first problem is that liabilities are being improperly booked. If the fee you charge is fixed upon deposit then the fee should credit \"\"Revenue\"\", the fee charged to you should be booked by crediting cash and then debiting \"\"Expenses\"\", and the remaining should be booked as a liability. If the fee is fixed upon withdrawal then this will become more complex because of the fact that a change in the fee can occur before it can be applied. In this case, the current fee should be credited as \"\"Revenue\"\" and some \"\"Allowance for fee increase\"\" should also be credited. The amount owed to the withdrawer should be booked as a liability as before. Multiple currency bookings I will assume that this is for a cryptocurrency service of some sort considering the comments in your question and your presence on bitcoin.se. Accounting can become very dangerous when mixing denominations. This is why all major accounting standards mandate books be maintained single currency. In your case, if the deposit is in USD, for example, and the liability is in BTC then two books must be maintained, one for each. To account for your operation properly using single currency accounts, the denominations must be exchanged internally and balanced across the two sets of books. For a deposit of BTC/depository of USD, the operation would be the same as described above, but then the cash should be credited away and the liabilities debited away from the USD books with simultaneous cash debits and liability credits on the BTC books. Considering the extreme volatility of cryptocurrency exchange rates, denominating accounts on the wrong set of books will quickly lead to insolvency or loss from improper accounting or both. From revenue to income Revenue can be construed as a liability since it could theoretically exist on the balance sheet. I mention this because all books, despite their name and quarter, are really simply long T accounts, like a blockchain. A blockchain could be subdivided into users' individual income statements & balance sheets, as the reverse of this concept. Revenues are credited, expenses are debited. The difference, \"\"net income\"\", is debited away with a credit to \"\"owners' equity\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd3ef520f888eb52e2ba21fe24b10c5", "text": "Usually payments are applied towards:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e1634b86dc0379488255eb75820baf2", "text": "\"I recently needed to compute a better balance that let us pick and choose what to include in the computed sum without losing information, so I revisited this topic and I'm pleased to say that I've found a solution that works (at least for our data - you may have transactions that this code doesn't recognize, but you can always modify it to match). My solution was written natively for MS SQL Server 2008 or later, it uses a scalar UDF, a VIEW, and a windowed aggregate (SUM OVER (ORDER BY ...) which means it should be almost-syntax compatible with PostgreSQL. MySQL does not support OVER but you can perform a running-sum using a variable with arithmetic addition directly in the SELECT clause. Create a database table with this schema (feel free to exclude columns you're not interested in, such as Option1Name): Create a UNIQUE index on TxnId - you could use it as a primary-key, I suppose. You might be tempted to create a Foreign-Key relationship between ReferenceTxnId and TxnId, however this will fail if you enforce it: we have many transactions where ReferenceTxnId points to a Transaction that doesn't exist. This is usually in the case of [Type] = 'Web Accept Payment Received' AND [Status] = 'Canceled'. We also have some TransactionId values longer than 17 characters: some TransactionIds start with \"\"U-\"\" - all pending money requests, I suspect this indicates the transaction is \"\"unfinished\"\". Re-download your entire PayPal History CSV files so that you have the latest retroactive updates. Import these CSV files into this PayPalHistory table. Do a simple test to see how bad PayPal's default data is: To find out where the differences are coming from, run this query: (The ORDER BY (...), RowId is to ensure consistent ordering when multiple transactions share the same timestamp) As you scroll through the results, you'll see how the naive SUM is thrown-off from the official PayPal-computed Balance column. So as you can see, the Net column value cannot always be trusted - what we need is to generate our own \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" value which is accurate - that is, the value is 0.00 for rows which do not affect the balance, instead of being what they are right now. The problem is, given a single row of data (such as any single row from the example table in my original Question) we have no way of inherently knowing what its \"\"EffectiveNet\"\" is. I have devised two functions to help solve this problem, the first function only looks at the ReferenceTxnId, Type and Status column values and generates accurate values for the vast majority of rows - indeed, in our dataset we only had one row for which this approach did not work. I recommend you try this one first and compare the running-sum value to ensure it works for your data: You can use this function in the query like so below, hopefully it should give you an accurate running-sum and balance figure at the end: 8. And here's the view that ties it all together: Used like so: I hope this helps anyone else wanting to do accurate bookkeeping with PayPal Transaction History files!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "843e12ea8c8fdca6bece36a8542c7c48", "text": "Really a very straightforward situation, and subsequently, answer. Call the university pursors that you normally deal with, ask them to document the last 3 months of disbursements and highlight the incorrect one(s). If the money is already spent out, ask them if they can apply it to future disbursements via adjusting entries, and call it a day. If not, and you CAN pay it back, go to your bank and ask them to figure it out...which they should be able to do, having the original sender's info.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "821d67b4880b9cbc60185d4405f61476", "text": "\"You should have separate files for each of the two businesses. The business that transfers money out should \"\"write check\"\" in its QB file. The business that receives money should \"\"make deposit\"\" in its QB file. (In QB you \"\"write check\"\" even when you make the payment by some other means like ACH.) Neither business should have the bank accounts of the other explicitly represented. On each side, you will also need to classify the payment as having originated from / gone to some other account - To know what's correct there, we'd need to know why your transferring the money in the first place and how you otherwise have your books established. I think that's probably beyond the scope of what's on-topic / feasible here. Money into your business from your personal account is probably owner's equity, unless you have something else going on. For example, on the S Corp you should be paying yourself a salary. If you overpay by accident, then you might write a check back to the company from your personal account to correct the mistake. That's not equity - It's probably a \"\"negative expense\"\" in some other account that tracks the salary payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1592c9cd0da3961ba90df07a51f28241", "text": "Instead of gnucash i suggest you to use kmymoney. It's easier", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8d2807c840985b9088a4bab68077ea99", "text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "46209eafc0c865103c6e95b81c4e4564", "text": "I've spent enough time researching this question where I feel comfortable enough providing an answer. I'll start with the high level fundamentals and work my way down to the specific question that I had. So point #5 is really the starting point for my answer. We want to find companies that are investing their money. A good company should be reinvesting most of its excess assets so that it can make more money off of them. If a company has too much working capital, then it is not being efficiently reinvested. That explains why excess working capital can have a negative impact on Return on Capital. But what about the fact that current liabilities in excess of current assets has a positive impact on the Return on Capital calculation? That is a problem, period. If current liabilities exceed current assets then the company may have a hard time meeting their short term financial obligations. This could mean borrowing more money, or it could mean something worse - like bankruptcy. If the company borrows money, then it will have to repay it in the future at higher costs. This approach could be fine if the company can invest money at a rate of return exceeding the cost of their debt, but to favor debt in the Return on Capital calculation is wrong. That scenario would skew the metric. The company has to overcome this debt. Anyways, this is my understanding, as the amateur investor. My credibility is not even comparable to Greenblatt's credibility, so I have no business calling any part of his calculation wrong. But, in defense of my explanation, Greenblatt doesn't get into these gritty details so I don't know that he allowed current liabilities in excess of current assets to have a positive impact on his Return on Capital calculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33e1168b647035deb672a2797e3a6afe", "text": "\"Your company actually will most likely use some sort of options pricing model, either a binomial tree or black-scholes to determine the value for their accounting and, subsequently, for their issuance and realization. First, market value of equity will be determined. Given you're private (although \"\"pre-IPO could mean public tomorrow,\"\"), this will likely revolve around a DCF and/or market approaches. Equity value will then be compared to a cap table to create an equity waterfall, where the different classes of stock and the different options will be valued along tranches. Keep in mind there might be liquidation preferences that would make options essentially further out of the money. As such, your formulae above do not quite work. However, as an employee, it might be difficult to determine the necessary inputs to determine value. To estimate it, however, look for three key pieces of information: 1. Current equity value 2. Option strike price 3. Maturity for Options If the strike is close to the current equity value, and the maturity is long enough, and you expect the company to grow, then it would look like the options have more value than not. Equity value can be derived from enterprise value, or by directly determining it via a DCF or guideline multiples. Reliable forecasts should come from looking at the industry, listening to what management is saying, and then your own information as an insider.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df5e1dba10e1e61648a2406353f3d658", "text": "You need an accountant who will be on your side. Not someone who will help you just fill in forms correctly . Too many play it by the book. Expense as much as you can. Your balance sheet should be a list of what you have (assets), who owes you money and who you owe, and how much cash you have. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b4fe471620d50e5a84a040ceb454af1", "text": "It's wrong in several situations: One, the business owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, and therefore reduces the company's profit and taxes. That would be tax avoidance and probably criminal. Two, someone who is not the sole owner counts this as a business expense, which it is not, reduces the company's profit and when profits are shared, the company pays out less money to the other owners. That's probably fraud. Third, if the owner or owners of a limited liability company draw out lots of money from the company with the intent that the company should go bankrupt with tons of debt that the owners are not going to pay, while keeping the money they siphoned off for themselves. That would probably bankruptcy fraud. Apart from being wrong, there is the obvious risk that you lose control over your company's and your own expenses, and might be in for a nasty surprise if the company has to pay out money and there's nothing left. That would be ordinary stupidity. If you have to tell your employees that you can't pay their salaries but offer them to admire your brand new Ferrari, that's something I'd consider deeply unethical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de3465af8fb591518d665a2084219520", "text": "One's paycheck typically has a YTD (year to date) number that will end on the latest check of the year. I am paid bi-weekly, and my first 2012 check was for work 12/25 - 1/7. So, for my own balance sheet, brokerage statements and stock valuations end 12/31, but my pay ended 12/24. And then a new sheet starts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5d1e8cea7fd9c7f67b3b8a3b5051f7f", "text": "Personally, I have a little checkbook program that I use to keep track of my spending and balance. Like you -- and I presume like most people -- I have certain recurring bills: the mortgage, insurance payments, car payment, etc. I simply enter these into the checkbook program about a month before the bill is due. Then I can run a transaction list that shows the date, amount, and remaining balance after each transaction. So if I want to know how much money I really have available to spend, I just look for the last transaction before my next payday, and see what the balance will be on that day. Personally, I always keep a certain amount of pad in my account so if I made a mistake and entered an incorrect amount for a check, or forgot to enter one completely, I don't overdraw the account. (I like to keep $1000 in such padding but that's way more than really necessary, it's very rare that I make a mistake of more than $100.) In my case, I don't enter electric bills or heating bills because I don't know the amount until I get the bill, and the amounts fall well within my padding, and for just two bills I can factor them in in my head. BTW I wrote this program myself but I'm sure there are similar products on the market. I used to use a spreadsheet and that worked pretty well. (Mainly I wrote the program because I have a tiny side business that I have to keep tax records for even though it makes almost no money.) You could in principle do it on paper, but the catch to that is that when you write payments on your paper ledger in advance of actually writing the check, you will often be writing down payments out of order, and so it becomes difficult to see what your balance is or was or will be on any given date. But a computer system can easily accept transactions out of order and then sort them and re-do the balance calculations in a fraction of a second.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7346bd0d0b0ec09308673820fb186c7", "text": "The four points mentioned above (without reading the paper in greater detail) all emphasize modern day balance sheet analysis. We should not conflate that with earnings analysis all of a sudden are a thing of the past and no longer valuable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eea2352eaf6e6363a012d1515817349", "text": "In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad462ecbfc5f54f1f9fd156f8790e689", "text": "20% is almost certainly too high. I agree with 2%, as a very rough rule. It will vary significantly depending on the industry. I generally calculate an average of the previous 2-3 years working capital, and deduct that from cash. Working capital is Current Assets less Current Liabilities. Current Assets is comprised of cash, prepaid expenses, and significantly, accounts receivable. This means that CA is likely to be much higher than just cash, which leaves more excess cash after liabilities are deducted. Which reduces EV, which makes the EV/EBITDA ratio look even more pricey, as Dimitri noted. But a balance sheet is just a snapshot of the final day of the quarter. As such, and because of seasonal effects, it's critical to smooth this by averaging several periods. After calculating this for a few companies, compare to revenue. Is it close to 2%?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f84a8ee420e08c0f644f89ae9183c0bb", "text": "What exactly does the balance sheet of a software company tell you? The majority of meaningful assets are inside your employees' heads. You can't capitalize R&amp;D and depreciate it, it's a straight flow through to the income statement. And you can't put human capital on a balance sheet. Software firms generally carry little to no debt and their cap structure is almost all equity. What are you going to put up for collateral when your product is bits and bytes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d77881dc3d8a425eeea4703c169e0b3", "text": "\"First, don't use Yahoo's mangling of the XBRL data to do financial analysis. Get it from the horse's mouth: http://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch.html Search for Facebook, select the latest 10-Q, and look at the income statement on pg. 6 (helpfully linked in the table of contents). This is what humans do. When you do this, you see that Yahoo omitted FB's (admittedly trivial) interest expense. I've seen much worse errors. If you're trying to scrape Yahoo... well do what you must. You'll do better getting the XBRL data straight from EDGAR and mangling it yourself, but there's a learning curve, and if you're trying to compare lots of companies there's a problem of mapping everybody to a common chart of accounts. Second, assuming you're not using FCF as a valuation metric (which has got some problems)... you don't want to exclude interest expense from the calculation of free cash flow. This becomes significant for heavily indebted firms. You might as well just start from net income and adjust from there... which, as it happens, is exactly the approach taken by the normal \"\"indirect\"\" form of the statement of cash flows. That's what this statement is for. Essentially you want to take cash flow from operations and subtract capital expenditures (from the cash flow from investments section). It's not an encouraging sign that Yahoo's lines on the cash flow statement don't sum to the totals. As far as definitions go... working capital is not assets - liabilities, it is current assets - current liabilities. Furthermore, you want to calculate changes in working capital, i.e. the difference in net current assets from the previous quarter. What you're doing here is subtracting the company's accumulated equity capital from a single quarter's operating results, which is why you're getting an insane result that in no way resembles what appears in the statement of cash flows. Also you seem to be using the numbers for the wrong quarter - 2014q4 instead of 2015q3. I can't figure out where you're getting your depreciation number from, but the statement of cash flows shows they booked $486M in depreciation for 2015q3; your number is high. FB doesn't have negative FCF.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdc14fda39e15aa5537599cf56abf0e0", "text": "i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&amp;1 and see if it is net or still to be included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9db0b7887a063e58b947c0f70c752d4", "text": "Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0001a99248286aede16dc861286d4b70", "text": "\"You are reading the balance sheet wrong. Everything Joe says is completely correct, but more fundamentally you have missed out on a huge pile of assets. \"\"Current assets\"\" is only short term assets. You have omitted more than $300B in long-term assets, primarily plant and equipment. The balance sheet explicitly says: Net tangible Assets (i.e. surplus of assets over liabilities) $174B\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4231c8ba1dee0efe017174185cea301", "text": "Generally you don't exclude cash that is needed to keep working capital going. A firm's need to cash will vary based upon it's AR and AP policies. Some companies that have beat up their vendors and extract harsh payment terms, like Dell and Walmart, often have negative working capital and can therefore be thought of as funding growth on their suppliers cash. Most companies require some amount of cash in their working capital to connect the dots from when they pay their suppliers and when their customers pay them. You need to leave that cash in your working capital calculation and on your DCF.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "49be636cb79217a992a2a5337909c617", "text": "\"See my comment below about the official exchange rate. There is no \"\"official\"\" exchange rate to apply as far as I'm aware. However the bank is already applying the same exchange rate you can find in the forex markets. They are simply applying a spread (meaning they will add some amount to the exchange rate whichever way you are exchanging currency). You will almost certainly not find a bank that doesn't apply a spread. Of course, their spread might be large, so that's why it is good to compare rates. By the way, 5 GBP/month seems reasonable for a foreign currency (or any) acct. The transaction fees might be cheaper in a different \"\"package\"\" so check. You should consider trying PayPal. Their spread is quite small - and publicly disclosed - and their per-transaction fees are very low. Of course, this is not a bank account. But you can easily connect it to your bank account and transfer the money between accounts quickly. They also offer free foreign currency accounts that you can basically open and close in a click. Transfers are instantaneous. I am based in Germany but I haven't had a problem with clients from various English-speaking countries using PayPal. They actually seem to prefer it in many instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fea2316fbdf92a6a9f2072df1000cf8", "text": "\"I am not sure about transferwise and how they work, but generally when I had to transfer money across countries, I ended up using a foreign currency/transfer company who needed the destination account details i.e. a GBP account in the UK in your case, and money from the source account. Basically that means your father would need to open an EUR account, probably in an EU country (is this an option?) but may be in the UK is fine too depending on transfer fees. And a GBP account in the UK, perhaps see if there is a better business account than HSBC around, I have used them as well as Santander before. The only FX transaction done in this straightforward set up is the one performed by the specialised company (there are a few) - and their spread (difference between interbank i.e. \"\"official\"\" and your price) is likely to be around 1.0 - 1.5%. The other expenses are transfer fees to the FX company account, say a flat fee of $25 for the SWIFT payment. The full amount less the spread above then goes to your UK GBP account. There are still the running costs of both EUR and GBP accounts of course, but here the advice would be just to shop around for offers/free banking periods etc. Point being, given the saving in FX conversion, it might still be a better overall deal than just letting HSBC deal with it all.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "baaa0dc7d6d940f6aa51f2bc7297996e", "text": "I did this for a few years and the best way I found was via http://xe.com/ It uses a bank transfer from your UK bank to xe.com (no fees from bank or xe). On the Canadian side, they use EFT (Electronic Fund Transfer, no fees from bank or xe.com) They have very competitive exchange rates. To make a transfer, you log in to xe and arrange your transfer. This locks in the rate and tells you how many GBP you need to transfer in. Then, transfer your money from the UK bank into xe using the details they provide. Two or three days later the money shows up in your Canadian acount. There's a bit of paperwork they need to set it up but it's not very hard. After it's set up, everything else is online. Enjoy!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df1ca7cce7c7a7cbbcb13b16a999800d", "text": "Typically, you can chose in the transfer if you want to transfer in target currency or in source currency. If you chose source currency, the receiving bank (for you, in India) does the conversion, and charges the fees. If you chose target currency, the sending bank does the conversion and charges the fees. The advantage is that they offer to generate a defined amount in the target currency, so you can pay a bill exactly. Either way, one of the two banks is going to charge you. It absolutely depends on the banks which fee is higher. From personal experience, between Europe and the US, either direction mostly the receiving bank is cheaper ('incoming fees' are set lower than 'outgoing'). I can't say for India; you need to check with your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9afe0ecf6ad92a9a8156e9eed777076d", "text": "how could I transfer the money from UK There are multiple ways, walk into your Bank and ask them to wire transfer to the Bank Account in India. You would need the SWIFT BIC of Bank in India, Account Number, etc. Quite a few Banks [State bank of India, HDFC, ICICI etc] also offer remittance service. Visit their website for more details. does it cost the tax and how much Assuming your status is NRI [Non Resident], there is no tax implications of this in India.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e651432466f0d37eb0787dcba0048ec2", "text": "There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aebb3e042d059f38512e55259f13f42e", "text": "Deutsche Bank states here (couldn't find it in english) that SEPA transfers (all transfers in EUR to EU states that have EUR) are free. So you could just transfer the money. Your custom daily transfer limit (by default 1000€ for online banking transfers) applies. You can change the limit online or by going to one of their branches. You would then transfer your money over the course of several days. You need the SWIFT and BIC code of your new account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36094ade5ebd58a72431950f9e483f7d", "text": "This is not allowed, and there is a name for it: IBAN discrimination. Searching for that term will give you some pointers what to do about it. The EU regulation that prohibits this is 260/2012, article 9, paragraph 2: A payee accepting a credit transfer or using a direct debit to collect funds from a payer holding a payment account located within the Union shall not specify the Member State in which that payment account is to be located, provided that the payment account is reachable in accordance with Article 3. You can report this at the relevant national authorities. In the Netherlands, this is De Nederlandsche Bank, which has a special e-mail address for this: [email protected]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a3d909a8a8d15a3b73e158a461de0", "text": "I can't comment about your tax liability in Greece. You will have to pay tax on interest in the UK. If you are earning massive amounts of interest, unlikely with the current interest policies from Merv, then you might be bumped up a tier. The receiving bank may ask for proof of the source of the funds, particularly if it is a fair chunk of change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e533d9c7b811bd582ae2e06caaa5bb38", "text": "Keep it simple, there is a good comparison site where you plug in how much money you want to send, and it tells you what all the major providers will end up giving you in Euros on the other end. Lots of the 'free' services give you a shit exchange rate. GBP->EUR is very competitive so when you go with non-banks you can pay very little (down to 0.1% in exchange rate differences). https://www.fxcompared.com/ is one such site. I plugged in sending 10,000 GBP to Spain, and TorFX came out best with you (at this moment in time) receiving 12,547 euros.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "311332c16f52022baed996f2c7cdfc26", "text": "You could use paypal to transfer money. You can pay with paypal and your UK contact could transfer the money to his bank account through paypal. I just received money this way from the US and paid 9 EUR for this. Receiving the funds is as quickly as clicking a button on the paypal site. Transfering it (without costs) took 1-3 days). It is by far the easiest way. If you are uncomfortable using paypal, the other option would be through your own bank account, where you would transfer using IBAN/SWIFT. The SWIFT bank account is usually the IBAN code plus a branch code. Often it is difficult to find the branch code, in that case you can use the IBAN+XXX. In the latter things might be delayed, but I actually haven't noticed the delay yet, since international transfer always seem to take between 1 and 10 days. The international transfering of money costs, except if it is within the EU region. The way to transfer money through Internet banking differs, from bank to bank. They keywords you need to look for are: SEPA, SWIFT, IBAN or international transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162", "text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c", "text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc53d9760e6493e8be78fe83c5079c90", "text": "The company says it's out of their control - it isn't. All they have to do is to INSTRUCT HSBC to send a certain amount of GBP, and then HSBC MUST send GBP. Obviously the bank doesn't like that because they make money through the conversion. That's not your problem. When told to send GBP, they must send GBP. Depending on what your relationship with that company is, you lost money because they didn't send the GBP. At the very least, they sent you four percent less in Euros than they should have sent you. So send them a bill for the difference. It's unfortunate that your bank charged for the conversion Euro to GBP, but fact is that less than the agreed amount arrived at your bank, and that's the responsibility of the sender.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7957baed2fcd5a97163f83bb26a8c990", "text": "It really depends on the amount of money - I currently have to pay my mortgage in the UK from the US until my house there is sold and my wife sends money from her (US) Paypal account to my UK Paypal account. As personal payments these don't attract the sort of fees you see for ebay payments et al. Compared to the fee-o-rama that a wire transfer turns into (I tried once from BofA to HSBC UK), it is noticeably cheaper for the amount of money we're sending. That said, a lot of the currency transfer services have support for monthly payments and you might get a decent exchange rate and fewer (or no) fees that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e7ade037d44f4b9595d38d7ea099389", "text": "The website http://currencyfair.com/ provides a service which gives you both a decent exchange rate (about 1% off from mid-market rate) and a moderately low fee for the transfer: 4 USD for outgoing ACH in the US, 10 USD for same-day US wire. For the reverse (sending money from the US to EU) the fees are: 3 EUR for an ACH, 8 EUR for a same-day EUR wire. It has been online for quite a while, so I assume its legit, but I'd do a transfer for a smaller sum first, to see if there are any problems, and then a second transfer for the whole sum.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "845b0104a1698b092c1d865f1661ebdc", "text": "A loan is most generally a liability, a part of the balance sheet. Expenses & income are part of the income statement. Income is the net of revenues after expenses. The interest is an expense on the income statement, but the loan itself does not reside there unless if it is defaulted and forgiven. Then it would become a revenue or contra-expense, depending on the methodology. The original purpose of the income statement is to show the net inflows of short term operational accruals which would exclude new borrowing and repaid loans. The cash flow statement will better show each cash event such as borrowing debt, repaying debt, or paying off a bill. To show how a loan may have funded a bill, which in theory it directly did not because an entity, be it a person or business, is like a single tank of water with multiple pipes filling and multiple pipes extracting, so it is impossible to know which exact inflow funded which exact outflow unless if there is only one inflow per period and one outflow per the same period. That being said, with a cash flow statement, the new loan will show a cash inflow when booked under the financing portion, and paying a bill will show a cash outflow when booked under the operating portion. With only those two transactions booked and an empty balance sheet beforehand, it could be determined that a new loan funded a bill payment.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4b27fe4787eb6e07ed71131bc7357766", "text": "\"There are other good answers to the general point that the essence of what you're describing exists already, but I'd like to point out a separate flaw in your logic: Why add more complications so that \"\"should I call this principal or interest\"\" actually makes a difference? Why's the point (incentive) for this? The incentive is that using excess payments to credit payments due in the future rather than applying it to outstanding principal is more lucrative for the lender. Since it's more lucrative and there's no law against it most (all) lenders use it as the default setting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f31db5acfc76067558fb64fe71b7f964", "text": "I'd finance the car (for 60 or 48 months), but stash enough money in a separate account so to guarantee the ability to pay it off in case of job loss. The rationales would be: Note that I'd only do this if the loan rate were very low (under 2%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6441b2846cb858fac0043e741626b0d1", "text": "You walk into the finance company with a written quote from the supplier for the equipment you want to buy. You then fill out forms and sign a promissory note. The finance company then writes out a check to the supplier for the amount of the quoted equipment. Usually you need to provide at least 3 things: They will require you to provide your social security number and sign a document allowing them to check your credit history which they will look up using the social security number. Note that banks will generally give better rates on a personal loan than a finance company. People usually only use finance companies when their credit is so bad that a bank will not loan them money. Heating and cooling companies that provide equipment will often loan the money to buy that equipment. As a point of advice, it is generally poor financial management to take out personal loans and may indicate a person that is wasting money or be in financial difficulties. For personal loan items (furniture, cars, clothing, jewelry, etc) you are far better off saving money to buy the item, not borrowing beyond your means. If you need a new furnace and it is an emergency, for example, if it were winter (which it is not) and your furnace could not be repaired, then that might justifiable. But borrowing money at a high rate to just upgrade a furnace or get a luxury like AC is unwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9998fe5551fdcc7029672487e60cc40f", "text": "The loan is private, so the business is more of a red-herring. The fact that you're closing it and lost a lot of money explains the loan, but is rather irrelevant otherwise as the loan is personal. Do consider potential tax benefits on writing off a loss, talk to a local tax adviser on that. Pros: Cons: I'm sure there are more considerations, of course, and I'm not familiar with the Canadian social safety nets to understand how much of a damage con #1 would be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc21ff450a0a0809f018f1758627b97f", "text": "\"Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: \"\"why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?\"\". Or perhaps \"\"if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k\"\". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb1cccd1b4441b98a23745c915152d9", "text": "As a personal advice, its best avoided to take a loan for a vacation. Having said that it would also depend on the amount of loan that one is planning to take and the duration for repaying the loan and the rate of interest. One has to also consider if you borrow; when you are paying the loan back, is that money comming out of something else that was budgeted. Say paying this loan means that you can't save enough for the downpayment for your house you plan to buy next year or will mean less contributions to retirement savings. If so then its definately advisable to forego the vacation travel. You can still take the holiday and enjoy at home doing something else that of meaning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75546585b13b415f40ba7b912437fc1a", "text": "\"Depending on the nature of the expenses, you will enter them under Deductions, on lines 9 through 20. Did you rent an office? Add the rental expense to line 13. Fee for a business license? Line 14. Everything else that doesn't fall into any specific category goes on line 20 (You'll need to attach a small statement that breaks out the expense categories, e.g. office supplies, phone, legal fees, etc.) Expenses that are entered in the Income section are costs directly related to sales, such as merchant fees that you pay to a bank if you take payments by credit card. Since you said the partnership has \"\"zero money coming in,\"\" I assume that it currently has no revenues, so all the fields in the Income section would be zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e22f6e1009285612eebc28166d5956d", "text": "As observed, there is no answer that will fit all, but below are some considerations: Your monthly requirement is 5000, so you have 3000 left to pay the monthly instalments (EMI). However, if you do pay 3000, you will have no money left for any other activities (holidays etc.) till your EMI is finished Set off a sum, let us say 500-1000, per month (you shall have to decide), for other expenses The rest of the money, in this case 2000-2500, you can pay as monthly EMI If you indicate that your monthly EMI to the bank, they will be able to tell you how much of loan you are eligible for and for how long the EMI would last. This is your benchmark If this loan amount is 750,000 or more, you do not need to put in your own money. So the decision then becomes how fast you want to pay off your loan and as accordingly you shall utilize your 500,000 However, if the EMI will not cover a loan of 750,000 (more likely case), you have options between the following: a. Max out on your loan that 2000-2500 EMI/month (in terms of years as well as amount) can get you and put the rest from 500,000. b. Min your loan in terms of amount and time and put your entire 500,000 c. The middle ground is to balance between the loan and your own money, which is the best approach, there is no figure here that works for all, you have to take the decision based on your circumstances. However, in general, the shorter the loan term (in years) better it is as in aggregate you pay less money to the bank. If you are 1-2 months away from buying the house, one exercise you could do is to keep the EMI money in a separate bank account and see how you fare with the residual cash, this would give you a good reality check. Hope this helps, thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccd5231b27144cc325ae0292bc69d661", "text": "\"I started storing and summing all my receipts, bills, etc. It has the advantage of letting me separate expenses by category, but it's messy and it takes a long time. It sounds from this like you are making your summaries far too detailed. Don't. Instead, start by painting with broad strokes. For example, if you spent $65.17 at the grocery store, don't bother splitting that amount into categories like toiletries, hygiene products, food, and snacks: just categorize it as \"\"grocery spending\"\" and move on to the next line on your account statement. Similarly, unless your finances are heavily reliant on cash, don't worry about categorizing each cash expense; rather, just categorize the withdrawal of cash as miscellaneous and don't spend time trying to figure out exactly where the money went after that. Because honestly, you probably spent it on something other than savings. Because really, when you are just starting out getting a handle on your spending, you don't need all the nitty-gritty details. What you need, rather, is an idea of where your money is going. Figure out half a dozen or so categories which make sense for you to categorize your spending into (you probably have some idea of where your money is going). These could be loans, cost of living (mortgage/rent, utilities, housing, home insurance, ...), groceries, transportation (car payments, fuel, vehicle taxes, ...), savings, and so on -- whatever fits your situation. Add a miscellaneous category for anything that doesn't neatly fit into one of the categories you thought of. Go back something like 3-4 months among your account statements, do a quick categorization for each line on your account statements into one of these categories, and then sum them up per category and per month. Calculate the monthly average for each category. That's your starting point: the budget you've been living by (intentionally or not). After that, you can decide how you want to allocate the money, and perhaps dig a bit more deeply into some specific category. Turns out you are spending a lot of money on transportation which you didn't expect? Look more closely at those line items and see if there's something you can cut. Are you spending more money at the grocery store than you thought? Then look more closely at that. And so on. Once you know where you are and where you want to be (such as for example bumping the savings category by $200 per month), you can adjust your budget to take you closer to your goals. Chances are you won't realistically be able to do an about-face turn on the spot, but you can try to reduce some discretionary category by, say, 10% each month, and transfer that into savings instead. That way, in 6-7 months, you have cut that category in half.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9369686ff9624d06b4a4d5eeb8a3d237", "text": "When you pay interest on a loan used to fund a legitimate investment or business activity, that interest becomes an expense that you can deduct against related income. For example, if you borrowed $10k to buy stocks, you could deduct the interest on that $10k loan from investment gains. In your case, you are borrowing money to invest in the stock of your company. You would be able to deduct the interest expense against investment gain (like selling stock or receiving dividends), but not from any income from the business. (See this link for more information.) You do not have to pay taxes on the interest paid to your father; that is an expense, not income. However, your father has to pay taxes on that interest, because that is income for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baf9d55a3c1cb700d5e66ed474161839", "text": "\"Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is \"\"No\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b9c8be20e94c5eaf3c1e14bc9a5ab8d", "text": "Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b11f4fa7e336955f0eea0451f70dcdc", "text": "This is dumb. The sub company will lose money but the parent company will pay taxes on the income they made off of expenses to the subcompany. This doesn't systematically reduce their risk either. Banks will loan more money if the parent company is liable to pay the bills if the sub company can't. So yes, a bank may make a loan to the sub company without any liability on the parent company, but its going to be a very small loan compared to what they would've given the parent company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "990c695c06f83b04293bc55ff1980a6d", "text": "I suspect @SpehroPefhany is correct and that your bank will cash a check from the US Department of the Treasury. Especially since they're the same ones who guarantee the U.S. Dollar. They may hold the funds until the check clears, but I think you'll have good luck going through your bank. Of course, fees and exchange rate are a factor. Consider browsing the IRS and US Treasury Department websites for suggestions/FAQs. I suggest you line up a way to cash it, and make sure there's enough left after fees and exchange rate and postage to get the check that the whole process is worth it, all before you ask it to be shipped to you. If there's no way to do it through your bank, through a money exchange business (those at the airport come to mind) or through your government (postal bank?), and the check is enough that you're willing to go through some trouble, then you should look into assigning power of attorney for this purpose. I don't know if it is possible, but it might be worth looking into. Look for US based banks in your area.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a226142728bbc8549afc706baf5fdc7c", "text": "\"Depending on how the check was made out, you may be able to file a DBA (\"\"doing business as\"\"), which would give you the business name locally. Then open an account under that name and deposit the check. Or simply go back to the customer and say \"\"hey, I don't have yhe company bak account open yet; could I exchange this check for one made out to me personally?\"\" That's how I've been handling hobby income under a company name. (I really do ned to file that DBA!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84d4f83c99c529b4aed1b5664848b939", "text": "\"When I was in this situation, I always did Married Filing Separately. In the space for spouse you just write \"\"non resident alien\"\". I'm assuming you don't make more than the Foreign Earned Income exclusion (about $100k), so the fact that you don't qualify for certain exemptions is probably irrelevant for you. As a side note, now that you are married you have \"\"a financial interest in\"\" all her bank accounts so if her and your foreign bank accounts had an aggregate value of over $10k at any point in 2015 you have until June 30th to file an FBAR, listing both her and your accounts. If you have a decent amount of assets you might need to fill out form 8938 with your tax return too. Here is a link with the reporting thresholds. https://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Corporations/Summary-of-FATCA-Reporting-for-U.S.-Taxpayers\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d945f60dc70338f915c42b0e43fabc1", "text": "\"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "740b46fcfa2d48a21f2b88ec87547131", "text": "The best thing you can do here is work with the IRS to the best of your ability. You can attempt to call them, attempt to go to one of their local branches in your area, or just hire an accountant to solve the problem. Just be mentally prepared to write a check. You could attempt to figure this all our yourself, but then a lot of tax law is open to interpretation. This is why I would recommend seeking the IRS's help if you DIY. Once you have addressed the issue to the satisfaction of the IRS agent, this will no longer be a problem. Provided you have a good attitude (which you express in your question) and are honest, I have found them very easy to work with. You will be a refreshing change of pace to the actual tax cheats. While I understand that you are not seeking advice on what got you your situation, I would like to offer some encouragement. Good for you for learning from, and addressing your mistakes. Doing this will serve you well in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00b3c587b025b5ae800f89468ba7f5d0", "text": "To be on the safe side - you'll want to get the full invoice. You don't need to actually print them, you can save it as a PDF and make sure to make your own backups once in a while. Only actually print them when the IRS asks you to kill some trees and send them a paper response, and even then you can talk to the agent in charge and check if you can email the digital file instead. The IRS won't ask for this when you file your taxes, they will only ask for this if you're under audit and they will want to actually validate the numbers on your return. You'll know when you're under audit, and who is the auditor (the agent in charge of your case). You'll also want to have some representation when that happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8513ca6e72c64c75066de5109e156db0", "text": "(I am making the assumption that this is a US based question). Keep in mind that the alternative is to amend your tax forms from 2010, and 2011. The IRS and the State will want their money, they might not to wait for 78 paychecks. That is 3 years. Ask for lots of documentation, so you understand what they are doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f9132bfd66f5c32c2f8d94f859edcbc", "text": "\"Here's the detailed section of IRS Pub 590 It looks like you intended to have a \"\"trustee to trustee conversion\"\", but the receiving trustee dropped their ball. The bad news is, a \"\"rollover contribution\"\" needed to be done in 60 days of the distribution. There is good news, you can request an extension from the IRS, with one of the reasons if there was an error by one of the financial institutions involved. Other waivers. If you do not qualify for an automatic waiver, you can apply to the IRS for a waiver of the 60-day rollover requirement. To apply for a waiver, you must submit a request for a letter ruling under the appropriate IRS revenue procedure. This revenue procedure is generally published in the first Internal Revenue Bulletin of the year. You must also pay a user fee with the application. The information is in Revenue Procedure 2016-8 in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2016-1 available at www.irs.gov/irb/2016-01_IRB/ar14.html. In determining whether to grant a waiver, the IRS will consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including: Whether errors were made by the financial institution (other than those described under Automatic waiver , earlier); Whether you were unable to complete the rollover due to death, disability, hospitalization, incarceration, restrictions imposed by a foreign country, or postal error; Whether you used the amount distributed (for example, in the case of payment by check, whether you cashed the check); and How much time has passed since the date of distribution. You can also see if you can get ETrade to \"\"recharacterize\"\" the equity position to your desired target IRA. The positive here is that the allowed decision window for calendar year 2016 rollovers is October 15 2017; the negatives are this is irrevocable, and restricts certain distributions from the target for a year (unlikely to impact your situation, but, you know, \"\"trust but verify\"\" anonymous internet advice); and it requires ETrade to recognize the original transaction was a rollover to a Roth IRA, which they currently don't. But if their system lets them put it through you could end up with the amount in a traditional IRA with no other taxable events to report, which appears to be your goal. Recharacterization FAQ\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67b68ecf5c993aeea42bb178987d334d", "text": "Yes, you are the proprietor of the business and your SSN is listed on Schedule C. The information on Schedule C is for your unincorporated business as a contractor; it is a sole proprietorship. You might choose to do this business under your own name e.g. Tim Taylor (getting paid with checks made out to Tim Taylor) or a modified name such as Tim the Tool Man Taylor (this is often referred to as DBA - Doing Business as), under a business name such as Tool Time etc. with business address being your home address or separate premises, and checking accounts to match etc. and all that is what the IRS wants to know about on Schedule C. Information about the company that paid you is not listed on Schedule C.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d67803ddbaed689189eccfe8f6a604e9", "text": "It's not just the US based mailing address for registration or US based credit-card or bank account: even if you had all these, like I do, you will find that these online filing companies do not have the infrastructure to handle non-resident taxes. The reason why the popular online filing companies do not handle non-resident taxes is because: Non-residents require a different set of forms to fill out - usually postfixed NR - like the 1040-NR. These forms have different rules and templates that do not follow the usual resident forms. This would require non-trivial programming done by these vendors All the NR forms have detailed instructions and separate set of non-resident guides that has enough information for a smart person to figure out what needs to be done. For example, check out Publication 519 (2011), U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens. As a result, by reading these most non-residents (or their accountants) seem to figure out how the taxes need to be filed. For the remaining others, the numbers perhaps are not significant enough to justify the non-trivial programming that need to be done by these vendors to incorporate the non-resident forms. This was my understanding when I did research into tax filing software. However, if you or anyone else do end up finding tax filing software that does allow non-resident forms, I wil be extremely happy to learn about them. To answer your question: you need to do it yourself or get it done by someone who knows non-resident taxes. Some people on this forum, including me for gratis, would be glad to check your work once you are done with it as long as you relieve us of any liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35c5605589b6b4dbdea21675a10af603", "text": "There might be a problem. Some reporting paperwork will have to be done for the IRS, obviously, but technically it will be business income zeroed out by business expense. Withholding requirements will shift to your friend, which is a mess. Talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA) about these. But the immigration may consider this arrangement as employment, which is in violation of the visa conditions. You need to talk to an immigration attorney.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a91b36f8bb70e9b628c2e13c02aba8da", "text": "For the record, I am the original question-asker and I'm reporting back to say that the approach described in the accepted answer did not work. I am adding a new answer, rather than commenting on the accepted answer, because of the length of explanation required. I applied for an ITIN by filing a W-7 with all appropriate documentation, including a birth certificate, death certificate, and consular recognition of birth abroad (i.e., proof of U.S. citizenship). The IRS rejected the application, saying that people who are eligible for SSNs can't have ITINs. That placed me in an untenable situation, because even though the IRS said she was eligible for an SSN, the Social Security Administration said they never issue SSNs to dead people as a matter of policy. So: Insult was added to injury. It is true that I should have applied for an SSN while she was alive, in which case it would have been a simple matter. I just paid the extra tax that was due because of her not counting as a dependent during the years for which I was filing. The amount was not worth fighting over further, or renouncing my U.S. citizenship. Moral of story: Live, in all ways, as if there is no guarantee your children will be alive tomorrow. Because there is no such guarantee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a11834365a486a06411dce06c9b09bb", "text": "\"The wire is probably the quick way to go. There may be a lower cost method through an international bank like Citi or HSBC. If you are a US resident or have a \"\"substantial presence\"\" in the United States, the IRS may be interested in the origins of your money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da971f8aec74ab1da208c8d182c2eb1", "text": "\"Context: My parents overseas (Japan) sent me a little over $100,000 to cover an expensive tuition payment and moderate living expenses in 2014. They are not US residents, Green card holders or citizens. They did not remit the tuition payment directly to the school. I am a resident (for tax). This is enough to answer yes. That's basically the set of requirements for filing: you received >$100K from a non-US person and you yourself are a US person. You have to report it, and unless it is taxable income - it is a gift. Taxable income is reported on the form 1040, gifts are reported on the form 3520. The fact that in Japan it is not considered a gift is irrelevant. Gift tax laws vary between countries, some (many) don't have gift taxes at all. But the reporting requirement is based on the US law and the US definition of \"\"gift\"\". As I said above, if it is not a gift per the US law, then it is taxable income (and then you report all of it regardless of the amount and pay taxes). Had they paid directly to the institution, you wouldn't need to count it as income/gift to you because you didn't actually receive the money (so no income) and it went directly to cover your qualified education expenses (so no gift), but this is not the case in your situation. Whether or not this will be reported by the IRS back to Japan - I don't know, but it was probably already reported to the authorities in Japan by the banks through which the transfers went through. As to whether it will trigger an audit - doesn't really matter. It was, most likely, reported to the IRS already by the receiving banks in the US, so not reporting it on your tax return (either as income or on form 3520) may indeed raise some flags.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1c755a38f3d7640be1c7375a29c4961", "text": "I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11df2c61d4b972e329f7d49fe185d5b9", "text": "I am no expert on the situation nor do I pretend to act like one, but, as a business owner, allow me to give you my personal opinion. Option 3 is closest to what you want. Why? Well: This way, you have both the record of everything that was done, and also IRS can see exactly what happened. Another suggestion would be to ask the GnuCash maintainers and community directly. You can have a chat with them on their IRC channel #gnucash, send them an email, maybe find the answer in the documentation or wiki. Popular software apps usually have both support people and a helpful community, so if the above method is in any way inconvenient for you, you can give this one a try. Hope this helps! Robert", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9e3f53666b7c9d00610348c62925ba16", "text": "You are not asking for insurance purposes. So I'll go with this - I have two asset numbers I track. All investments, retirement accounts, etc, the kind that are valued at day's end by the market, etc. From that number I subtract the mortgage. This produces the number that I can say is my net worth with a paid in full house. The second number simply adds back the house's value, give or take. Unless I owned art that was valued in the six figures, it seems pointless to me to add it up, except for insurance. If my wife and I died tomorrow, the kid can certainly auction our stuff off, but knowing that number holds no interest for us. When most people talk 'net worth', I don't see them adding these things up. Cars, maybe, but not even that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec14b01f26939b3b715582b7563c1223", "text": "\"You're asking for opinions here, because it's a matter of how you look at it. I'll give it a shot anyway. For insurance purposes - there's a clear answer: you insure based on how much it would cost you to replace it. For some reason, you're considering as a possibility negotiating with the insurance company about that, but I've never heard of insuring something at a \"\"possible sales value\"\" unless you're talking about a one of a kind thing, or a particularly valuable artifact: art, jewelry, etc. That it would be appraised and insured based on the appraised value. Besides, most of the stuff usually loses value once you bought it, not gains, so insuring per replacement costs makes more sense because it costs more. As to your estimations of your own net worth to yourself - its up to you. I would say that something only worth what people would pay for it. So if you have a car that you just bought brand new, replacing it would cost you $X, but you can only sell it for $X-10%, because it depreciated by at least 10% once you've driven it off the dealer's lot. So I would estimate your worth as $X-10% based on the car, not $X, because although you spent $X on it - you can never recover it if you sell it, so you can't claim to have it as your \"\"net worth\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7959ce3e7df7f3b632e4e04aba5ef107", "text": "\"My opinion: including the value of depreciating property one owns in a net worth calculation is silly - but could be interesting You don't expect your TV or laptop to gain value. Instead, you expect them to decrease in value every year until you replace them. Anything you expect to hold or increase in value (art, a house, etc) is a different story. If you'd like to really get anal about this, you can track your net worth like a business would track its balance sheet. I'm not going to go into detail, but the general idea is that when you purchase an item, you debit the cost from \"\"cash\"\" and add the value paid to \"\"assets\"\" (so your net worth doesn't change when you make a purchase). You then depreciate the value of the item under \"\"assets\"\" according to a depreciation schedule. If you plan on replacing your laptop every three years, you might subtract 33% of the value every year. This could be an interesting exercise (i.e. even if you make money, your net worth may decrease because of all the depreciating junk you own), but my hunch is that it wouldn't be worth the effort it requires.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de8c18e220f160ff30cd91f8f5309b2e", "text": "\"There is no objective \"\"should\"\". You need to be clear why you're tracking these numbers, and the right answer will come out of that. I think the main reason an individual would add up their assets and net worth is to get a sense of whether they are \"\"making progress\"\" or whether they are saving enough money, or perhaps whether they are getting close to the net worth at which they can make some life change. Obviously shares or other investment property ought to be counted in that. Buying small-medium consumer goods like furniture or electronics may improve your life but it's not especially improving your financial position. Accounting for them with little $20 or $200 changes every month or year is not necessarily useful. Things like cars are an intermediate case because firstly they're fairly large chunks of money and secondly they commonly are things people sell on for nontrivial amounts of money and you can reasonably estimate the value. If for instance I take $30k out of my bank account and buy a new car, how has my net worth changed? It would be too pessimistic to say I'm $30k worse off. If I really needed the money back, I could go and sell the car, but not for $30k. So, a good way to represent this is an immediate 10-20% cost for off-the-lot depreciation of the car, and then another 12% every year (or 1% every month). If you're tracking lifestyle assets that you want to accumulate, I think monetary worth is not the best scale, because it's only weakly correlated with the value you get out of them. Case in point: you probably wouldn't buy a second-hand mattress, and they have pretty limited resale value. Financially, the value of the mattress collapses as soon as you get it home, but the lifestyle benefit of it holds up just fine for eight years or so. So if there are some major purchases (say >$1000) that you want to make, and you want to track it, what I would do is: make a list of things you want to buy in the future, and then tick them off when you either do buy them, or cross them out when you decide you actually don't want them. Then you have something to motivate saving, and you have a chance to think it over before you make the purchase. You can also look back on what seemed to be important to you in the past and either feel satisfied you achieved what you wanted, or you can discover more about yourself by seeing how your desires change. You probably don't want to so much spend $50k as you want to buy a TV, a dishwasher, a trip to whereever...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aead3049de7a22bb0e128792c7e1b97", "text": "\"Valuation by definition is what an item is worth, not what you paid for it. Net worth should be market value for fixed assets or \"\"capital\"\" goods. I would consider this cars, real property, furniture, jewelry, appliances, tools, etc. Everything else can be valued by liquidation value. You can use valuation guides for tax deductions as a way to guide your valuation. Insurance companies usually just pick a percentage of your home's value as a guesstimate for content value. I could see doing this as a way to guide purchase decisions for appliances, cars or the like. But if you are trying to figure out the market value of your socks and underwear, I would argue that you're doing something that's a little silly.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "18e5ae8298e346338d69d4bfd5e80117", "text": "Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a", "text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "111f74c4834d4b8adee65a1ad58c9d5f", "text": "There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons. But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question. Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8458e6ebcc66911b291d37d15bc50a86", "text": "To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed36d63a9b925c315ab217b16467959", "text": "Have you looked at what is in that book value? Are the assets easily liquidated to get that value or could there be trouble getting the fair market value as some assets may not be as easy to sell as you may think. The Motley Fool a few weeks ago noted a book value of $10 per share. I could wonder what is behind that which could be mispriced as some things may have fallen in value that aren't in updated financials yet. Another point from that link: After suffering through the last few months of constant cries from naysayers about the company’s impending bankruptcy, shareholders of Penn West Petroleum Ltd. (TSX:PWT)(NYSE:PWE) can finally look toward the future with a little optimism. Thus, I'd be inclined to double check what is on the company books.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3edf31495dba5679c752f641cffc948", "text": "\"There are basically two ways to get value out of an appreciating asset such as a home: (a) Sell it and take the profit. In the case of a home, you presumably still have to live somewhere, so unless you buy a cheaper home to replace it, this doesn't get you anywhere. If you can get another house that is just as nice and in just as nice a location -- whatever you consider \"\"nice\"\" to be -- than this sounds like a winning option. If it means moving to a less desirable home, then you are getting the cash but losing the nice home. You'll have to decide if it's worth it. (b) Use it as collateral for a loan. In this case, that means a second mortgage, home equity loan, or a home equity line of credit. But this can be dangerous. House prices are very volatile these days. If the value of the house falls, you could be stuck with debts greater than your assets. In my humble opinion, you should be very careful about doing this. Borrowing against your house to send the kids to college or pay for your spouse's life-saving operation may be reasonable. Borrowing against your house to go on a fancy vacation is almost surely a bad idea. The vacation will be over within a couple of weeks, but you could be paying off the debt for decades.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "405b853a067c3fbd64786f8275b3a758", "text": "The cost to you for selling is 3/8% of a years salary, this is what you won't get if you sell. Tough to calculate the what-if scenarios beyond this, since I can't quantify the risk of a price drop. Once the amount in he stock is say,10%, of a years salary, if you know a drop is coming, a sale is probably worth it, for a steep drop. My stronger focus would be on how much of your wealth is concentrated in that one stock, Enron, and all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e03f1046142c70a6d7ee328fc4975df", "text": "I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading. For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49fd455ca96a97dcc7da59dbe49f84fe", "text": "The answer to this question is very different depending on the type of item. From a purely financial perspective you would want to answer these questions which you may not have enough information to answer: Realistically the question I prefer to ask are: When something fails there is a big difference to me between having the cash and having an insurance policy that is suppose to cover it even if they are theoretically the same value. Some insurance policies may even be better than cash, like homeowners insurance might help take care of details like finding a contractor to fix the issue, finding temporary housing if your house burns down, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cccddce7245c2fc6e6ab69142941c94c", "text": "\"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started. Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up. That's what we call the physical probability. It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes. For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15. It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium. When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities. That is, we can create a new set up \"\"probabilities\"\" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes. This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.). We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities. When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price. To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market. Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price. Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down. That would be the physical probability. Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate. This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned. The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one. I can't emphasize that enough. If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up. The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option. In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down. Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price. That's what's going on here. To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there. That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price. In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "355134dc7106c021184cf1ba965be9a2", "text": "\"An individual's net worth is the value of the person's assets minus his debt. To find your net worth, add up the value of everything that you own: your house, your cars, your bank accounts, your retirement investments, etc. Then subtract all of your debt: mortgage, student loans, credit card debt, car loans, etc. If you sold everything you own and paid off all your debts, you would be left with your net worth. If Bill Gates' net worth is $86 Billion, he likely does not have that much cash sitting in the bank. Much of his net worth is in the form of assets: stocks, real estate, and other investments. If he sold everything that he has and paid any debts, he would theoretically have the $86 Billion. I say \"\"theoretically\"\" because in the amounts of stock that he owns, he could cause a price drop by selling it all at once.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aef81cf44ab4afae962e42919029e98d", "text": "There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899", "text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc3255d6ac2cde2a7fa12e7e607b0cdd", "text": "\"This is fraud, the related legal code is \"\"11 USC 548 - Fraudulent transfers and obligations\"\"; also see the wiki page for Fraudulent Conveyance in the United States. Highly suggest cutting off contact with this person, and speaking with a lawyer as soon as possible to make sure you have not already broken the law.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0529fea655ebbbcfb237deaa9dd0dd6f", "text": "tl;dr: I think you can find a much better deal. Doing a strait refi will cost you some amount of money. However, a 2.5% fee ont top of closing costs seems really high. You can get a quote from Quicken loans pretty quick and compare their fee. Also I would check with a local bank, preferably one you already do business with. The 2.5% is probably their commission for originating the loan. If you are in the Southeast I have had great luck with Regions bank. They are large enough, but also small enough. Please know that I have no affiliation with either company. BTW the rate also seems high. Doing a quick search of Bank Rate, it seems you can get 3.25% with zero fee as of this writing. The worse deal they show is 3.46 with a .75% fee, much better than you were quoted. If you can afford it I would also encourage you to think outside the box. A client of mine was able to obtain a Home Equity Loan (not line of credit) to replace their mortgage. They went for a 7 year pay off, with the loan in first position, at a rate about .75 below the then current 15 year rate. The key was there was zero closing costs. It saved them quite a bit of money. Also look at a 10 year fixed. It might not be much more than you are paying now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2aa4cebbc3a1d5e04fa16b1b566baa", "text": "\"tl;dr: I agree with Pete B.'s assertion that you should continue shopping. That's not the whole story though; there are other factors that can raise your rate, and affect your closing costs. The published rate is typically the best rate you can get. Here are some other factors that can raise your rate: You should have received a loan estimate which will itemize the fees you will pay. On that document you will see if you are paying a price to \"\"buy down\"\" the rate, and all the other fees. How are you calculating the 2.5%? Note that some fees are fixed. An appraisal on a $40K home may cost the same as an appraisal for a $400K home. If you add up the total closing costs and view it as a percentage of the loan, the smaller loan may have a higher percentage than the larger loan, even though the total cost of the smaller loan is less.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2d5bb94909c30485bc2c50f65b5c5d", "text": "\"2.5%? Whoa, you are being robbed there. Straight-up, stripped-down, and bent-over-a-table robbed. Never agree to \"\"fees\"\". If they don't want to do the work to give you a loan, there are other lenders who do. Rarely agree to \"\"points\"\". If you know -- and I don't mean \"\"think\"\", I mean \"\"know\"\" -- if you know that you are going to hold that loan much longer than it would take to repay those points, then maybe. For example, if they are charging one point to lower your rate 0.25%, you want to be totally sure you will stay in the house at least four years, and probably more like six or eight years before moving or refinancing. It's more-or-less OK to pay for the appraisal. If something goes wrong with the loan application, the appraisal will be valid for a few more months, you can try again. I once had 14% cash for a down-payment. The loan officer said if I could come up with 15%, the rate would be reduced by 0.25%. To get the money, I took a \"\"reverse point\"\", which paid me 1% but raised my the rate by 0.25%. The loan officer, who wasn't too bright, asked, \"\"Why did you do that? The two things cancel each other out.\"\" \"\"I did it,\"\" I explained, \"\"because you paid me 1% of the value of my house to sign my name twice.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2ab53e43975b4fa2a9b46afa695c6079", "text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "405ddc56a2744e6db7fe012bb88d0cd4", "text": "I’d say No, it’s not crazy. I did that even for a mortgage, because the bank tended to lose my checks or let them sit for some days, and then claim I paid late. They were known on the internet for their poor processing department, so I decided to avoid that monthly hassle with calling and arguing, and refinanced. Compare the pain with the cost for refinancing, and if you think it’s worth it, change. You might even get a cheaper credit, and save on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07cc6e02b5e2adaa710b7e947bd93f5b", "text": "A home equity loan (not a HELOC home equity line of credit) typically comes with far lower fees, but a slightly higher rate. As rates fell over the last decade, I saw a choice of the Equity Loan with no cost at all, or a refinance with a few thousand in closing costs. We refinanced 3 times with the home equity loan, the last one was 5%. As the 15 year regular mortgage hit 3.5%, it seemed worth the costs, about $1800, to get the low rate, and expecting that rates would go lower. The 1.5% savings on the balance put our breakeven at fewer than 6 months. If you truly meant HELOC, the variable aspect is the risk, as rates how little room down from here, but much room to rise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3cdef35aaac0973a4b5f0e3b3484258", "text": "\"The usual rule of thumb is that you should start considering refinance when you can lower the effective interest rate by 1% or more. If you're now paying 4.7% this would mean you should be looking for loans at 3.7% or better to find something that's really worth considering. One exception is if the bank is willing to do an \"\"in-place refinance\"\", with no closing costs and no points. Sometimes banks will offer this as a way of retaining customers who would otherwise be tempted to refinance elsewhere. You should still shop around before accepting this kind of offer, to make sure it really is your best option. Most banks offer calculators on their websites that will let you compare your current mortgage to a hypothetical new one. Feed the numbers in, and it can tell you what the difference in payment size will be, how long you need to keep the house before the savings have paid for the closing costs, and what the actual savings will be if you sell the house in any given year (or total savings if you don't sell until after the mortgage is paid off). Remember that In addition to closing costs there are amortization effects. In the early stages of a standard mortgage your money is mostly paying interest; the amount paying down the principal increases over the life of the loan. That's another of the reasons you need to run the calculator; refinancing resets that clock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af5fa73a378d3cb8c758b0030f400d24", "text": "A better idea if applicable is to borrow 50K (max allowed) to buy a house and pay interest to yourself instead of a bank. And none of that origination and closing fees lost to the lender", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2bbed915d44426de310febe8fe1942d", "text": "\"If you mortgage after the fact you will usually pay an extra .25% higher on the interest rate because a \"\"cash out\"\" refinance is treated as riskier than a new home purchase mortgage. You might save enough on the purchase price of the home with a cash offer to make that higher interest rate worth it, but in most cases, if you are planning to hold the loan for a long time, it's best to get that mortgage at the time of purchase. You might be able to get the same deal with an offer that says you will pay cash if there are any problems getting the loan approved.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c81cded03e56b49760d6e19fd22bb8b", "text": "You have the 2 properties, and even though the value of property B is less than the amount you owe on it hopefully you have some equity in propery A. So if you do have enough equity in property A, why don't you just go to the one lender and get both property A and B refinanced under the same mortgage. This way hopefully the combined equity in both properties would be enough to cover the full amount of the loan, and you have the opportunity to refinance at favourable rate and terms. Sounds like you are in the USA with an interest rate of 3.25%, I am in Australia and my mortgage rates are currently between 6.3% to 6.6%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66002fb9387b1f794929de8adce812a2", "text": "\"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall \"\"cost\"\" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR \"\"cost\"\" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5694e32c676d48aaca4d8e2f863eaf4d", "text": "If you selected a mortgage that allows additional payments to be credited against the principal rather than as early payment of normal installments, them yes, doing so will reduce the actual cost of the loan. You may have to explicitly instruct the bank to use the money this way each time, if prepay is their default assumption. Check with your lender, and/or read the terms of your mortgage, to find out if this is allowed and how to do it. If your mortgage doesn't allow additional payments against the principal, you may want to consider refinancing into a mortgage which does, or into a mortgage with shorter term and higher monthly payments, to obtain the same lower cost (modulo closing costs on the new mortgage; run the numbers.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "572a32d554233503e883503c3868ed18", "text": "In the spring of this year FHA increased their rates for Mortgage Protection insurance. (I am looking for a good refernceon the government website) Non Government reference Annual MIP For an FHA Streamline Refinance that replaces a FHA loan endorsed on, or after, June 1, 2009, the annual MIP varies based on loan type and loan-to-value. The annual MIP schedule, for loans with case numbers assigned on, of after, June 1, 2009 : For your example the monthly payment would be: $184,192*(1.2/100)*(1/12) = ~ $184.19 You were quoted 179.57 a month", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b72faafa690bbfb528899a7265893f15", "text": "Some types of loans allow for reamortization (recasting) - which does exactly what you're talking about (making a big payment and then refiguring the monthly amount rather than the overall lifespan), without requiring any kind of a fee that refinancing does. Not every, or even most, mortgages, allow for recasting. And most that do offer recasting, may limit the recasting to a once-a-loan type of thing. So check beforehand, and make those big payments before you do any recasting. (Most banks and mortgage servicing companies may not advertise or even speak about recasting options unless you specifically ask your loan officer.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afcc0a968d643cff64bd0cfd4ba171b7", "text": "I don't know what rates are available to you now, but yes, if you can refinance your car at a better rate with no hidden fees, you might save some money in interest. However, there are a couple of watchouts: Your original loan was a 6 year loan, and you have 5 years remaining. If you refinance your car with a new 6 year loan, you will be paying on your car for 7 years total, and you will end up paying more interest even though your interest rate might have gone down. Make sure that your new loan, in addition to having a lower rate than the old loan, does not have a longer term than what you have remaining on the original loan. Make sure there aren't any hidden fees or closing costs with the new loan. If there are, you might be paying your interest savings back to the bank in fees. If your goal is to save money in interest, consider paying off your loan early. Scrape together extra money every month and send it in, making sure that it is applied to the principal of your loan. This will shorten your loan and save you money on interest, and can be much more significant than refinancing. After your loan is paid off, continue saving the amount you were spending on your car payment, so you can pay cash for your next car and save even more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "729a274b75d31606e25221628517faca", "text": "The question Why would refinancing my mortgage increase my PMI, even though rates are lower? contains a decent discussion of PMI. It's based on the total amount you borrow, not just the difference to 80% LTV. For easy math, Say you put 15% down on a $100K house. Your PMI is 1.1%, not on the 'missing' $5000, but on the $85000 balance. So you are paying $935/yr extra due to the $5000 you didn't have available. In addition to the mortgage itself. Even at 90% LTV, you'd pay $990/yr for the fact that you are short $10,000. Other than this discussion of PMI calculations, Chad's answer is pretty thorough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c03dd18c13742556c9a05cf07c6a9cf", "text": "You should check the details of those balance transfers - they typically have a 3 to 5 % 'one-time fee', which means you pay nearly a year's interest right away. And then every time you transfer the total on again. Also, this fee gets added to the credit card total, and it is possibly considered paid last (after you paid off the completed transferred balance), so it cost interest for the whole time (and that interest is different, maybe 19.99 % or worse). It is probably a better idea to refinance for 5 years at <3%, and they pay off as fast as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c36120c66fc452e2f231b91ee5e76f0", "text": "\"You can definitely do it. But: Refinancing would make more sense to you, you can refinance at no cost and get rates below 4%, so you'll be saving 1% a year, without paying anything extra. If you pay the fees you'll get even lower rates, but then you need to check whether its worth it. I've just refinanced to a 15 years fixed mortgage at no cost a couple of months ago, and got 3.875% rate (in California), so its definitely worth looking into, don't just dismiss it. This will limit your flexibility though, because paying 30yrs loan \"\"as if\"\" is much more flexible than committing on 15yes loan - you can always go back to your original payments if you want to spread it out a bit more. You can add a HELOC once you've accumulated some equity to back you up, that's what I did.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b3ac2f80e67f261caa489a092d340948", "text": "IBAN -> is International Bank Account Number. The number is constructed in such a way that it uniquely identifies your account in the world. I.e. it has a country in it, Bank (and branch) and the actual account number. This is an international standard adopted by the EU, Australia and NZ. Going forward it would be sufficient to just quote the IBAN for payment without any other details. BIC, SWIFT Code, SWIFT BIC, SWIFT ID [all mean the same] is a Bank Identifier Code [More correctly Business Identifier Code] that is again an International standard and used on all International payments. The SWIFT BIC is constructed as Hence SWIFT BIC can be 8 Chars or 11 Chars. The additional 3 Chars help bank identify the Branch where the account is held and where the payment needs to be made. So LOYDGB2L is the main head office If your branch is, say, in Canary Wharf, the SWIFT BIC would be LOYDGB21 [21-> Canary Wharf] with a 3 digit branch added.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "939a487b612476d7fe996c850ad57139", "text": "BIC and IBANN are used in EU (and some other OECD countries) for inter bank transfers. SWIFT is used everywhere for interbank transfers. In the US - IBAN system is not (yet, hopefully) available, so you have to use SWIFT. The codes may look the same, but these are different systems. More details here.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a071d6e3e0b14da2a3a72b374d496658", "text": "\"Are you sure you're using the same date range? If you're using Max, then you're not, as ^FTMC goes back to 12/1/1985 while ^GDAXI only goes back to 11/1/1990. If I enter a custom date range of 11/1/1990 through 10/24/2015, I get: and: which, other than the dates it chose to use as labels on the x-axes, look identical. (I tried to add the URLs of the charts, but it looks like the Yahoo! URLs don't include the comparison symbol, which makes them useless for this answer. They're easy enough to construct though, just add the secondary symbol using the Comparison button and set the date range using the calendar button.) On your PS, I don't know, as you can see by my charts it even chose different labels when the date ranges were identical (although at least it didn't scale different dates differently), so maybe it's trying to be \"\"smart\"\" and choose dates based on the total amount of data available for the primary symbol, which is different in the two cases.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aab733e55ada36c6c0e039c24d391e5", "text": "\"I'm with you here, I can't imagine who in IB would be \"\"financial modeling\"\" with Excel. Matlab, R, or even more general purpose languages like C are much more common. Even things like cookie-cutter monte carlo simulations or many-step binomial trees are a pain with excel.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16", "text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56a51834c97003723af0acd774fa6198", "text": "My account is with Indian Bank, if that's relevant. Indian Bank already has SWIFT BIC. Is there any way I can receive such international transfers in my account if the bank branch itself is not SWIFT enabled? The Branch need not be SWIFT enabled. However the Bank needs to be SWIFT enabled. Indian Bank is SWIFT enabled and has several Correspondent Banks in US. See this link on Indian Bank Website Select USD as filter in bottom page. It will list quite a few Banks that are correspondent to the Indian Bank. Click on the Link and it will give you more details. For example with Citi Bank as Correspondent. In the Beneficiary account details fill in your account details etc and send this to the company and they should be able to send you a payment based on this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8196b546ce56d3e8f33d88e27da513d", "text": "Preparation &amp; processing an application for obtaining Code Number / sub -code number to the newly establishment &amp; Branch office in various part of states for extending the benefit of ESI Scheme to employees employed in that regions. We would process an online application to obtain TIC of newly joined employees within 10 days from the date of joining and data for the same shall be provided by you in time. We would be retrieving the Individual Insurance No.s &amp; maintain their contributions in the devised ESIC Register to be maintained. Monthly Payment Challans to be computed online and same shall be forwarded to you for payment on or before 21st of every month. To ensure payment before due date, data shall be provided in time. Preparation and compilation of Half Yearly Returns and Annual Returns would be our responsibility in cases where manual challan is prepared. All the Payments and Returns would be filed within the stipulated time and the adherence would be monitored by us. Guidelines to the Insured Persons (I.P.) pertaining to the Benefits under the ESIC Act, 1948 and provision of Information related to Insurance Medical Practitioner(Imp's) and Hospitals through ESIC. We would be liasoning on behalf of the establishment with the Regional Office &amp; Branch Office for ensuring smooth functioning. We would also be attending the periodical Inspections and hearings on behalf of the establishment. The Responsibility of the Assessment would be limited for the period which would be coverable under our service tenure. We will keep the Company posted on all Amendments &amp; Development of the Act.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a03d53afa8f63f5fe77c9b2e26f6dcbe", "text": "They represent two distict payment processing mechanisms that just happen to be available on one product. Rather like having dvi and hdmi on you laptop. Your account number and sort code relates to the bank account. Your long number, expiry and ccv relate to the card. It is perfectly possible and not uncommon to have two different cards on the same account, which would have their own card numbers etc. The BACS, CHAPS, DirectDebit and FasterPayments systems use the account numbers. These transactions are practically irreversible and work through the interbank transfer system and should be considered 'direct money transfers' - electronic cash. The long digits are used by Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc and go through their own payment systems. These payments are 'indirect' and may or may not be reversible as the private payment network (visa etc) has some accountability. They work like electronic cheques. This is why debit card transactions can cause you to go overdrawn - you are writing a promise to pay from an account. It is up to the bank to block the card if you have no money, vs a CHAPS payment that checks the money is there before moving it. It is easier (but still hard) to recover money lost through Visa fraud than BACS. Credit cards have only the long number etc. While savings accounts (non-checking accounts) have only account numbers. Depending on where you are different laws will likely cover debit card vs money transfer payments. In the UK Direct debit guarantee is the most common protection on the BACS system, while standing orders and faster payments give you little legal power. Debit cards will give you some protection because the payment system stands between you and the bank account, so if you didn't make the transaction you should be able to reclaim the money ('card not present fraud'). If you did make the transaction but the vendor failed to supply or goods were faulty then a Chargeback system exists where you may also be able to reclaim. A bank transfer you make is irrecoverable and refund can only be claimed through court for faulty goods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2594be8dd8d0d6e4592540c643f5b2e1", "text": "Does your friend have a preference? Why does he have that preference? Is his reasoning sound or can you make better suggestions. That's all that matters in a Mac v. PC debate. I'm assuming your friend is going into an undergraduate program. In which case he most likely won't touch any finance courses until his third year and even then they won't require macros or VBAs. Companies that he interns at will provide computers (usually) and when he graduates he'll be shopping for another computer anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aae1e5e2604e7ef112e1abe3a414971f", "text": "IBAN is enough within SEPA and it should be so for your bank as well. Tell them to join our decade, or change bank. I received bank transfers from other continents to my SEPA account in the past and I don't remember ever needing to say more than my IBAN and BIC. Banks can ask all sorts of useless information, but if your bank doesn't have a standard (online) form for the operation then it probably means you're going to spend a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe060089401b7d25e5d143cbe46a28c2", "text": "I found a way to do this, but it's slightly backwards. Quicken does not allow you to make a graph of just your income, probably because that would be a fairly boring graph for most people. But it does allow you to do a graph of your expenses. Doing so, while including income categories, will produce the graph I want, but with negative numbers (savings is negative spending). This will show a bar graph of overall spending, counting income as Negative Spending. So, having negative bars is good in this case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af5fa55579da3eadf5e5ebb14dd22cc5", "text": "If the payment is sent to incorrect swift code, the receiving bank will return the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c88acf92d8a3f41fe59469111e40423d", "text": "\"It's either equal weighted or market cap weighted, not both. This one appears to be equal weighted. \"\" S&amp;P Pharmaceuticals Select Industry Index (SPSIPH) is an equal-weighted index that draws constituents from the GICS sub-industries that contain companies involved in pharmaceutical related activities. Liquidity and market capitalization screens are applied to the indices to ensure investability\"\" http://www.amex.com/amextrader/tdrInfo/data/axNotices/2006/valert2006-17.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49296d9f0888a89e4fa9bd5cfa66cf71", "text": "I started my business about 4 years ago. I heard bad things about Quickbooks for Mac so I steered clear. I used an open source program called GnuCash and it does a good job. It's free and fairly easy to set up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c4aa5aa6b8c8d5d06a84a7f9401c40", "text": "No. You can initiate SWIFT payments from Bank A, whenever Bank A is open for business. The transaction takes around 2-5 days for it to complete depending on the currency pair and countries involved. Once you initiate the payment, the Bank A sends it to SWIFT Network which in turn send it to Bank B. Whenever Bank B is open for business it would process the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "882feb570228ae176ed2072547a97f86", "text": "Ask them to send a SWIFT payment [aka International Wire]. You would need to give them your bank details, essentially Bank Account, Bank Name & Address, SWIFT BIC, etc. Almost all Public Sector Bank and all leading Private scetor banks are members of SWIFT and can give you a the SWIFT BIC. If you are not sure about other party, it would be wise to open a new account and give the details of this account rather than your normal account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eea0e3fbaf191dfd12e72fab5ce8e39", "text": "Codecademy is a fantastic way to learn basic language syntax and understand what the end goal of these most basic operations is. I agree though that if a critical person uses it to base all their understanding of programming/technology on, everyone's going to suffer forever. Especially given CEO egos.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0eee34d622b96978b429cc79262ad507", "text": "The vast majority of individual taxpayers in the United States operate on a cash basis of accounting. This means that the assignment of deductions or income to tax year is based on the date of the paycheck. So the money in that early January 2016 paycheck has been correctly assigned to the 2016 tax year. This is unfortunate for you because you will receive a W-2 for 2016 showing that you had a retirement account. Knowing exactly how many paychecks there are in a year can be very import to know when trying the reach or avoid some thresholds. Even quitting the previous pay period might not have helped. I have seen some companies payout unused vacation, sick and severance over several paychecks. They didn't give you it all in one lump sum, they did it 80 hours a paycheck until the balance owed to the employee was zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c52509438f7054dcf8206a78ae61d72", "text": "\"Publication 590a covers this in a fairly specific manner. Page 11, section \"\"Are You Covered by an Employer Plan?\"\", specifies: The Form W-2 you receive from your employer has a box used to indicate whether you were covered for the year. The “Retirement Plan” box should be checked if you were covered. So, by default, if that's checked, you're covered. 590 does go into more detail, though. Assuming you're covered under a Defined Contribution plan (a 401k for example): Defined contribution plan. Generally, you are covered by a defined contribution plan for a tax year if amounts are contributed or allocated to your account for the plan year that ends with or within that tax year. Tax Year: Tax year. Your tax year is the annual accounting period you use to keep records and report income and expenses on your income tax return. For almost all people, the tax year is the calendar year. Further, they cover issues related to an employee leaving Dec. 31 very specifically: A special rule applies to certain plans in which it is not possible to determine if an amount will be contributed to your account for a given plan year. If, for a plan year, no amounts have been allocated to your account that are attributable to employer contributions, employee contributions, or forfeitures, by the last day of the plan year, and contributions are discretionary for the plan year, you are not covered for the tax year in which the plan year ends. If, after the plan year ends, the employer makes a contribution for that plan year, you are covered for the tax year in which the contribution is made. Example: Example. Mickey was covered by a profit-sharing plan and left the company on December 31, 2014. The plan year runs from July 1 to June 30. Under the terms of the plan, employer contributions do not have to be made, but if they are made, they are contributed to the plan before the due date for filing the company's tax return. Such contributions are allocated as of the last day of the plan year, and allocations are made to the accounts of individuals who have any service during the plan year. As of June 30, 2015, no contributions were made that were allocated to the June 30, 2015, plan year, and no forfeitures had been allocated within the plan year. In addition, as of that date, the company was not obligated to make a contribution for such plan year and it was impossible to determine whether or not a contribution would be made for the plan year. On December 31, 2015, the company decided to contribute to the plan for the plan year ending June 30, 2015. That contribution was made on February 15, 2016. Mickey is an active participant in the plan for his 2016 tax year but not for his 2015 tax year. Mickey is in a similar (but different) circumstance, and it's clear from the IRS's treatment of his circumstance that you would be in the same boat (just a year less off) - but be aware given Mickey's situation that it's theoretically possible for them to make another contribution next year, as Mickey had, depending on when their plan year/etc. ends. So - from the IRS's point of view, everything you said the company did is correct. They paid you in January, contributed to your 401k as a result of that paycheck, and thus you were officially considered covered for 2015.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66cf187d12586eeea3f8f22c2d71bc0e", "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.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5c112237e1af5fe303b2050fcc28fbe6", "text": "\"Your question was about recharacterizing. But then you said \"\"I contributed a few thousand dollars to my 401(k) as Roth contributions\"\" which means you never converted from a 401(k) to a Roth 401(k), the deposit was always Roth. Even if the law changes allowing the recharacterization, it would not apply to your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc7b333b1d11ea994accd1f8b78a8fdf", "text": "\"Yes, the penalty is the tax you pay on it again when you withdraw the money. The withdrawal of the excess contribution is taxed as your wages (but no penalty). Excess contribution cannot be added to the basis or considered \"\"after-tax\"\" (hence the double taxation). Note that allowing you to keep the excess contribution in the plan may lead to disqualifying the plan, so it is likely that the plan administrator will force you to remove the excess contribution if they become aware of it. Otherwise you may end up forcing early 401(k) withdrawal on all of your co-workers. More on this IRS web page. And this one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87edc000256694af380d11f69fe1bb66", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0093dceae67fbb095838d14a50777f62", "text": "Most plans yes, but it depends on your specific plan's provisions. You want to get a Summary Plan Description for your specific plan. Speak with HR (assuming you have one, or whoever is in charge at your company) and request a Summary Plan Description (they are legally required to provide you with one if you ask, although there may be a small cost to you for printing). It will tell you in there when distributions may be made following severance of employment as it pertains to your specific plan. An excerpt from the doc submitted to the IRS for plan approval - option g would be the choice that's available, and participant should watch out for. This is the response (a small excerpt, the full doc ran 2 pages and had private information) - It confirms the full document (the plan itself) was approved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "493fff5992da61579f6f8f74553419bf", "text": "\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6fa88dd5a13406065a89aa37e4b200a5", "text": "\"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abedfb33f3b34c86677e9bbbec5b8e35", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "232e578503b1027f16e365fd142129f7", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180e87b8bc2cab1c42dd460fd98a8b67", "text": "\"I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"receive retirement benefits\"\". If the company had a 401k, that probably is the retirement plan. Few companies have both a 401k and an old-style pension plan, you typically have one or the other. So if your 401k was rolled over into some other account, you have already received your retirement benefits. If you mean that the 401k was rolled over into an IRA and you are asking if you can now start withdrawing from the IRA, see Excel Strategies answer. Short answer: Yes you can, but there's a 10% penalty unless you meet one of the exceptions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c894ede59d3edcf779c575c9a3ed0a", "text": "Most companies put the company match in your account each paycheck, but your are not generally vested for the match. If you leave before the specified time period then they pull back part of the matching funds. I knew somebody who did something similar back in the 1980's with their 401K. They put in 8% of their paycheck after taxes; a 100% match was deposited; then they pulled out the employees contribution every quarter. They did this for the 10 years I knew them. It avoided any tax implications, and they were still saving 8% of their pay for retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b4a6de4abd5979bec69ee4ab7328788", "text": "The 401(k) contribution is Federal tax free, when you make the contribution, and most likely State too. I believe that is true for California, specifically. There was a court case some years ago about people making 401(k) or IRA contributions in New York, avoiding the New York state income tax. Then they moved to Florida (no income tax), and took the money out. New York sued, saying they had to pay the New York income tax that had been deferred, but the court said no. So you should be able to avoid California state income tax, and then later if you were to move to, for example, Texas (no income tax), have no state income tax liability. At the Federal level, you will have different problems. You won't have the money; it will be held by the 401(k) trustee. When you try to access the money (cash the account out), you will have to pay the deferred taxes. Effectively, when you remove the money it becomes income in the year it is removed. You can take the money out at any time, but if you are less than 59 1/2 at the time that you take it, there is a 10% penalty. The agreement is that the Feds let you defer paying the tax because it is going to finance your retirement, and they will tax it later. If you take it out before 59 1/2, they figure you are not retired yet, and are breaking your part of the agreement. Of course you can generally leave the money in the 401(k) plan with your old employer and let it grow until you are 59.5, or roll it over into another 401(k) with a new employer (if they let you), or into an IRA. But if you have returned to your own country, having an account in the U.S. would introduce both investment risk and currency risk. If you are in another country when you want the money, the question would be where your U.S. residence would be. If you live in California, then go to, say France, your U.S. residence would still be California, and you would still owe California income tax. If you move from California to Texas and then to France, your U.S. residence would be Texas. This is pretty vague, as you might have heard in the Rahm Emanual case -- was he a resident of Chicago or Washington, D.C.? Same problem with Howard Hughes who was born in Texas, but then spent most his life in California, then to Nevada, then to Nicaragua, and the Bahamas. When he died Texas, California and Nevada all claimed him as a resident, for estate taxes. The important thing is to be able to make a reasonable case that you are a resident of where ever you want to be -- driver's license, mailing address, living quarters, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93a0b8695c9a5a04a43380ef2899b658", "text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b2e8432ffa0c2ebae1abc87008fc1a2", "text": "Ok, so if I have a 401k, when does it become mine? When I retire and start taking distributions from it? At that point, is the only thing I own what I actually take out or is the full balance mine? Who owns the 401k when I'm contributing? This is just raising more questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f1d37b45d53d66203be41d788dcd70", "text": "\"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa6ac06db3552d08eda4e4d6ff3339b3", "text": "Your freelance income will not qualify you for the work-from-home deductions, for that you would need a T2200 form signed by your employer. But, you are allowed to be self employed as a sole-proprietorship while still being an employee of another company. If you take that route, you'll be able to write-off even more expenses than those you linked to. Things like a portion of your internet bill can be claimed, for example. But note that these deductions would only apply to offset the self-employment income, so if you're not earning very much from the freelance work, it might not be worth all the hassle. Filing taxes when self-employed is definitely more complicated, and many people will get professional tax preparation help - at least for the first time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "11915ff3a99c1880ff5a2f373c1bb3d9", "text": "A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adc17db506bafceb24d67a90a4c0e99c", "text": "There is another option. Stay where you are.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c", "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.,)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aad069a6ac0513c4b6ccac2d8d966826", "text": "One thing no one else has touched on is the issue of time frame. If I'm looking to hold my shares over the next few years, I don't mind riding out a few short-term bumps, while the short-seller is looking to make a quick profit on some bad news. Sure, I could sell and rebuy, but that's a lot of hassle, not to mention commissions and tax issues.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69947d6c0e43b0bf91f2a80a10db5fd", "text": "I'm not saying I'm so sure as to start shorting tech stocks (with market volatility what it is nowadays, you could lose money because bankers got a bailout and everything went up irrespective of its actual earnings). But I'm so sure as to say that selling any stock you've got in small tech companies and avoiding investing in start-ups is probably a good idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dcf7e294498674a4dcbe9ce8598061c", "text": "\"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c8a416ad3271707caef66cfe7803798", "text": "Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8d00d25fc080b968a4da21485d99698", "text": "Timothy Sykes specializes in this type of trade, according to his website. He has some recommendations for brokers that allow shorting low-priced stocks:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f08e13fc7dc2e38f1130fcc08cae6595", "text": "I would add to this that, while everyone is right on trading, there are certain special situations you could look into that could turn a profit in a relatively short time frame (one month, say). A recent example is Northstar Realty Finance (NRF). I bought in at $16.50 prior to a spinoff, sold half (the spinoff company) at $18.75 within a month, and the other half (the REIT) has since paid a 50 cent dividend and gone up to mid $18s as well within a total of just over 2 months. (This admittedly sounds like bragging, which isn't intended- I just want to give an example of a short term position resulting in a gain, and I don't know any off the top of my head except the one I did recently). This isn't trading, but it is a short term position that would have turned a profit with $1800. I still wouldn't recommend it, considering commissions eats a sizable portion. But if you want to take short term positions, you don't need as much as you would to be a day trader. I would read Seth Klarman's Margin of Safety, the sections on spinoffs and bankruptcy. They provide some useful information on some short term positions. However, also be aware that you should be willing to hold any short term position as a long term position if it does not immediately work out. By way of example, I believed NRF would go up post spinoff but the spinoff company stay the same. Instead, NRF stayed the same and the spinoff went up. But NRF was undervalued, so I held it for another month. Just my advice. As far as learning goes- use play money. But if you never are going to have enough money to really trade with, hopefully my info on short-term positions is helpful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48345d5776717886b3a688f1d83911e7", "text": "If you were certain you would probably do best by short selling an ETF that tracked the index for the market you think was about to tank. You'd certainly make a lot more money on that strategy than precious metals. If you were feeling super confident and want to make your money earn even more, you could also buy a bunch of put options on those same ETF funds. Obligatory Warning: Short selling and options can be extremely risky. While most investments cap your potential losses to your total investment, a short sale has no theoretical limit to the amount of money you can lose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042f9a1692281b7268716120e19011d8", "text": "There is no magic bullet here. If you want professional management, because you think they know more about entry and exit points for short positions, have more time to monitor a position, etc... (but they might not) try a mutual fund or exchange traded fund that specializes in shorts. Note: a lot of these may not have done so well, your mileage may vary", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2d062f068f98ea49fdcfd0b131105c", "text": "The problem with short would be that even if the stock eventually falls, it might raise a lot in the meantime, and unless you have enough collateral, you may not survive till it happens. To sell shares short, you first need to borrow them (as naked short is currently prohibited in US, as far as I know). Now, to borrow you need some collateral, which is supposed to be worth more that the asset you are borrowing, and usually substantially more, otherwise the risk for the creditor is too high. Suppose you borrowed 10K worth of shares, and gave 15K collateral (numbers are totally imaginary of course). Suppose the shares rose so that total cost is now 14K. At this moment, you will probably be demanded to either raise more collateral or close the position if you can not, thus generating you a 4K loss. Little use it would be to you if next day it fell to 1K - you already lost your money! As Keynes once said, Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. See also another answer which enumerates other issues with short selling. As noted by @MichaelPryor, options may be a safer way to do it. Or a short ETF like PSQ - lists of those are easy to find online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f663ad4ec7451b19430e6e659f58d06", "text": "\"So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the \"\"normal\"\" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0781f8a4ea12589a43b6447b9e7066ea", "text": "\"To summarize, there are three basic ways: (3) is the truly dangerous one. If there is a lot of short interest in a stock, but for some reason the stock goes up, suddenly a lot of people will be scrambling to buy that stock to cover their short position -- which will drive the price up even further, making the problem worse. Pretty soon, a bunch of smart rich guys will be poor guys who are suddenly very aware that they aren't as smart as they thought they were. Eight years ago, such a \"\"short squeeze\"\", as it's called, made the price of VW quadruple in two days. You could hear the Heinies howl from Hamburg to Haldenwanger. There are ways to protect yourself, of course. You can go short but also buy a call at a much higher price, thereby limiting your exposure, a strategy called a \"\"straddle\"\", but you also reduce your profit if you guessed right. It comes down to, as it always does, do you want to eat well, or to sleep well?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8df73538b20c5e146d67c58d07e48b41", "text": "\"An important point yet to be mentioned is that, with a standard investment, the most you can lose of your £100 stake is £100 (if the company literally goes bust, say). With shorting on the other hand, your downside is not limited to your initial stake. You could \"\"invest\"\" £100, but end up owing £200, £500, or, well, the sky's the limit. Shorting is dangerous even for experienced investors. For a beginner, it is about the worst possible investment strategy I can think of!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88d77a3dd754aefdfb72b4a009b8c5e4", "text": "\"Started to post this as a comment, but I think it's actually a legitimate answer: Running a rental property is neither speculation nor investment, but a business, just as if you were renting cars or tools or anything else. That puts it in an entirely different category. The property may gain or lose value, but you don't know which or how much until you're ready to terminate the business... so, like your own house, it really isn't a liquid asset; it's closer to being inventory. Meanwhile, like inventory, you need to \"\"restock\"\" it on a fairly regular basis by maintaining it, finding tenants, and so on. And how much it returns depends strongly on how much effort you put into it in terms of selecting the right location and product in the first place, and in how you market yourself against all the other businesses offering near-equivalent product, and how you differentiate the product, and so on. I think approaching it from that angle -- deciding whether you really want to be a business owner or keep all your money in more abstract investments, then deciding what businesses are interesting to you and running the numbers to see what they're likely to return as income, THEN making up your mind whether real estate is the winner from that group -- is likely to produce better decisions. Among other things, it helps you remember to focus on ALL the costs of the business. When doing the math, don't forget that income from the business is taxed at income rates, not investment rates. And don't forget that you're making a bet on the future of that neighborhood as well as the future of that house; changes in demographics or housing stock or business climate could all affect what rents you can charge as well as the value of the property, and not necessarily in the same direction. It may absolutely be the right place to put some of your money. It may not. Explore all the possible outcomes before making the bet, and decide whether you're willing to do the work needed to influence which ones are more likely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e19c9cf8d26bc4722076e8306f5b4ae5", "text": "\"I'm in a similar situation, but I live in a state that doesn't allow mortgagees to \"\"walk away\"\" without recourse. I would consider a short sale or otherwise abandoning the property if: At the end of the day, real estate is an investment, and you don't realize gains or losses until you close the position. The \"\"ra, ra\"\" crowd that thought that real estate was going to boom forever in 2006 was just as wrong as the \"\"bad news bears\"\" crowd that thinks that real estate will never recover either. Investments rise and fall. Many people who bought houses in the 1980's boom (recall the S&L crisis) were underwater for years until prices started rising in the mid-90's. You haven't lost money until you realize that loss.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5055608f8caf74890a406bf141ec219f", "text": "This is why we tell people not to co-sign unless they are able and willing to risk that money becoming a gift... or are able and willing to treat it as business rather than family. Unfortunately that advice is a bit late now to help you. When you cosigned, you promised the bank that you would make any payments he didn't. The bank doesn't care why he didn't, they just want their money on time. Getting him to repay you for covering this is strictly between the two of you, and unless you signed paperwork at the time establishing a contract other than the promise to cover his loan this becomes Extremely Messy. First step is to make the payments so the loan doesn't continue acquiring fees and hurting your credit rating, and keep it from falling behind again. Then you have to convince him to repay the money you have effectively given him. Depending on your relationship, and financial situations, you may decide to carry him for a while and trust that he'll pay you back when he can, or sic a lawyer on him. You need to make that decision, recognizing that it may be a matter of how much family drama you are willing to tolerate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b5b8cfc4acd6355d85c5f38d45a7ff", "text": "He wasn't wrong that a mortgage would help your credit score, assuming that this was a perfect world and everyone held up their end of the bargain. However, now that he hasn't, you are still legally obligated to pay the loan amount (including his portion of it). As for a lawsuit, it would be hard to prove what he said verbally, however, it doesn't hurt to call a lawyer for a free consultation.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "47f824d42ed7ff0928853fa65f72d426", "text": "\"I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for. For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house. If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it. Point being is that you need to go after the asset. If there is no asset you need to go after you \"\"friend\"\". Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court. Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution. By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options. For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty. If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default. If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you. I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping. It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car. I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the \"\"friend\"\" still is around and trusts cosigner. I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the \"\"friend\"\". I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice. Seeking a lawyer is a joke. Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours. It isn't like you are suing a business or something. The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details. The other part is cosigning the loan. Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend? Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids. And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend. I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "680fa146b93af0f153dc5aab90f5f7cf", "text": "Yes, you can trade your properties. Go to the county recorder's office to find out the exact procedure. Deeds generally have specific language to use and you must describe the property accurately in the deed. If you want to do the transfer yourself, you will need to make sure you have the language correct. Also, you might want to do a title search to make sure that there are no claims against the property your brother is trading you, such as by a lender who might have loaned money to him with the property as collateral. (3) Yes, the normal way in the US is quitclaim deeds. (4) A quitclaim deed only lists the money (or other consideration) that changes hands. (5) Since it is a trade for equal value, there are no taxes. (6) No. Normally a lawyer is only needed if you are dealing with a stranger and the transaction is complex. As long as you follow the procedures of the clerk's office correctly there should be no need for a lawyer. In fact, a lawyer might be undesirable because they could slow things down. Also, since this is a non-standard trade, a lawyer actually has a higher chance of screwing something up because they will not give it long thought, the way you would. Also, they will use messengers and mail instead of actually going to the recorders office, another source of error which you can avoid by doing the process correctly--ie visiting the recorders office. Lawyers don't like getting out of their chairs and this causes them to make a lot of mistakes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9a715a99e75fda4a54ce531c8a5a61", "text": "'If i co-sign that makes me 100% liable if for any reason you can't or won't pay. Also this shows up on a credit report just like it's my debt. This limits the amount i can borrow for any reason. I don't want to take on your debt, that's your business and i don't want to make it mine'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f2563cad205c94298096d00029a66ad", "text": "Depending on jurisdiction, the fact that you made some payments might give you an ownership share in the house in your own right. What share would be a complex question because you might need to consider both the mortgage payments made and maintenance. Your sister might also be able to argue that she was entitled to some recompense for the risk she describes of co-signing, and that's something that would be very hard to quantify, but clearly you would also be entitled to similar recompense in respect of that, as you also co-signed. For the share your mother owned, the normal rules of inheritance apply and by default that would be a 50-50 split as JoeTaxpayer said. You imply that the loan is still outstanding, so all of this only applies to the equity previously built up in the house prior to your mother's death. If you are the only one making the ongoing payments, I would expect any further equity built up to belong solely to you, but again the jurisdiction and the fact that your sister's name is on the deeds could affect this. If you can't resolve this amicably, you might need to get a court involved and it's possible that the cost of doing so would outweigh the eventual benefit to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80cd12b199c52298cec99dc26f6ee26", "text": "\"That ain't nothing. It's really easy to get \"\"whipped up\"\" into a sense of entitlement, and forget to be grateful for what you do have. If this house doesn't exist, what would his costs of housing be elsewhere? Realistically. Would landlords rent to him? Would other bankers lend him money to buy a house? Would those costs really be any better? What about the intangible benefits like not having any landlord hassles or having a good relationship with the neighbors? It's entirely possible he has a sweet deal here, and just doesn't make enough money. If your credit rating is poor, your housing options really suck. Banks won't lend you money for a house unless you have a huge ton of upfront cash. Most landlords won't rent to you at all, because they are going to automated scoring systems to avoid accusations of racism. In this day and age, there are lots of ways to make money with a property you own. In fact, I believe very firmly in Robert Allen's doctrine: Never sell. That way you avoid the tens of thousands of dollars of overhead costs you bear with every sale. That's pure profit gone up in smoke. Keep the property forever, keep it working for you. If he doesn't know how, learn. To \"\"get bootstrapped\"\" he can put it up on AirBnB or other services. Or do \"\"housemate shares\"\". When your house is not show-condition, just be very honest and relatable about the condition. Don't oversell it, tell them exactly what they're going to get. People like honesty in the social sharing economy. And here's the important part: Don't booze away the new income, invest it back into the property to make it a better money-maker - better at AirBnB, better at housemate shares, better as a month-to-month renter. So it's too big - Is there a way to subdivide the unit to make it a better renter or AirBnB? Can he carve out an \"\"in-law unit\"\" that would be a good size for him alone? If he can keep turning the money back into the property like that, he could do alright. This is what the new sharing economy is all about. Of course, sister might show up with her hand out, wanting half the revenue since it's half her house. Tell her hell no, this pays the mortgage and you don't! She deserves nothing, yet is getting half the equity from those mortgage payments, and that's enough, doggone it! And if she wants to go to court, get a judge to tell her that. Not that he's going to sell it, but it's a huge deal. He needs to know how much of his payments on the house are turning into real equity that belongs to him. \"\"Owning it on paper\"\" doesn't mean you own it. There's a mortgage on it, which means you don't own all of it. The amount you own is the value of the house minus the mortgage owed. This is called your equity. Of course a sale also MINUS the costs of bringing the house up to mandatory code requirements, MINUS the cost of cosmetically making the house presentable. But when you actually sell, there's also the 6% Realtors' commission and other closing costs. This is where the mortgage is more than the house is worth. This is a dangerous situation. If you keep the house and keep paying the mortgage all right, that is stable, and can be cheaper than the intense disruption and credit-rating shock of a foreclosure or short sale. If sister is half owner, she'll get a credit burn also. That may be why she doesn't want to sell. And that is leverage he has over her. I imagine a \"\"Winter's bone\"\" (great movie) situation where the family is hanging on by a thread and hasn't told the bank the parents died. That could get very complex especially if the brother/sister are not creditworthy, because that means the bank would simply call the loan and force a sale. The upside is this won't result in a credit-rating burn or bankruptcy for the children, because they are not owners of the house and children do not inherit parents' debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40a99919f28a3c7d056d902e9656174f", "text": "\"I want to first state that I'm not an attorney and this is not a response that would be considered legal advice. I'm going to assume this was a loan was made in the USA. The OP didnt specify. A typical auto loan has a borrower and a co-borrower or \"\"cosigner\"\". The first signer on the contract is considered the \"\"primary\"\". As to your question about a primary being a co-borrower my answer would be no. Primary simply means first signer and you can't be a first signer and a co-borrower. Both borrower and co-borrower, unless the contract specifies different, are equally responsible for the auto loan regardless if you're a borrower or a co-borrower (primary or not primary). I'm not sure if there was a situation not specified that prompted the question. Just remember that when you add a co-borrower their positive and negative financials are handled equally as the borrower. So in some cases a co-borrower can make the loan not qualify. (I worked for an auto finance company for 16 years)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5d08e321efc507002eba796822e1af0", "text": "\"Is there any way through this? Yes, but you're not going to like it. If your friend has guaranteed the loans, then it's your friend's obligation to pay them when the brother-in-law is not cooperating. That's what it means to guarantee a loan. (Obligatory: \"\"Before lending your friends or family money, ask yourself which you need more.\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "098ac72e2b2d1e5322ce9d5621a9821b", "text": "In the end you, your dad, and your brother should come to an agreement so there's no surprises or unfulfilled expectations, but here's my opinion: If you can afford to make the additions now: I would offer to pay fully for the addition, with the understanding that the additional value that it generates is yours. That keeps everything in your name, and should be fair since you pay for the expense and someday reap the benefit. If you can't afford to make the additions now: I see two options: have your brother buy your father's house, giving you half of the proceeds, and use those proceeds to make the addition as above, or split the cost of the addition and have some sort of contract drawn up promising to reimburse him (with the amount of the reimbursement very clear, like XXX dollars plus accrued interest at Y% annually) as a condition to selling the house. One other part you didn't mention is any compensation you get for keeping your father at your house. What compensation (if any) you get is not as important as making sure that the three of you all agree on what is fair. In any case, clear, honest communication and full agreement is key. There is a very real risk that when your father's estate is settled that there will be disputes over what the agreement was and who it entitled to what. Having everything in writing may sound cold, but it keeps everyone on the same page.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "858ecaea2a495ca143b96c3c61491e17", "text": "\"The risk is that you will owe the bank the principal amount of the mortgage. Based on your question it would be foolish for you to sign. Anyone who describes a mortgage as \"\"something\"\" obviously has no idea what they are doing and should never sign a mortgage which is a promise to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. You would be doubly foolish to sign the mortgage because if you are guaranteeing the loan, you own nothing. So, for example, if your friend sold the house, pocketed the money, then left the country you would owe the full amount of the mortgage. Since you are not on the deed there is no way you can prevent this from happening. He does not need your approval to sell the house. So, essentially what your \"\"friend\"\" is doing is asking you to assume all the risk of the mortgage with none of the benefits, since he gets the house, not you. If a \"\"girlfriend\"\" is involved, that just increases the risk you will have a problem. Also, although it is not clear, it appears this is a second house for him. If so, that disqualifies him from any mortgage assistance or relief, so the risk is even higher. Basically, it would foolish in the extreme to co-sign the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b0cdaf9ab184bb8b243f5cc02e0b85a", "text": "\"First off, your commitment to paying down debt and apparent strong relationship with your brother is admirable. However, I think you are overcomplicating your situation and potentially endangering your relationship by attempting to combine debts in this way. You could consider a simple example where you have interest bearing at 5% and your brother has interest bearing debt at 10%. If you both pay down his higher interest debt first, and then both pay down your debt after, then clearly you will have paid less interest combined. But, by waiting to pay off your debt until later, you have accrued more interest yourself. So who has saved money by doing this? Your brother. You will have paid (let's say, without getting into balances) $50 extra interest to save your brother $70 in interest. So why would you want to give your brother $50? Total interest savings between both of you in this simplified example are $20. So, in theory your brother could pay you $60 after the fact, effectively meaning you end up $10 ahead, and your brother ends up $10 ahead. Here, you end up in a position where you could still say, in theory 'we both came out ahead'. But what if your brother loses his job while you're both paying off your debt, and he can't help any more? Does he accrue some type of calculated interest until he pays you back? What if he's off work for 2 years and still owes you 30k? What if he just never makes his payments to you on time? At what point do you resent your brother for failing to uphold his end of the deal? Money and friends don't mix. Money and family mixes even worse. In rare circumstances where you absolutely must mix family and money, get everything in writing. Get it signed, make it legal. Outline all details of the transaction, including interest rates, and examples of how the balances calculate. In 5 years when things go haywire, following the letter of the law is what will keep you from becoming enemies. But with family, often people have an expectation that \"\"while we agreed I would pay x, he's my brother, so he should take pity on me and allow me to pay only y, if I need to\"\". Finally, to your question about how to calculate amounts to pay: it will be very complicated. You will need to track minimum balance payments, interest rates, and even potentially the lost income which one of you gives up to pay down the other's debt. You could do these things in a simplified way close to what I've set out above, but then ultimately one of you will lose out. If you pay down your debts first, how can you calculate the lost living potential for your brother, who might want to buy a house but can't save for a down payment for an extra year? What if he has to move, and without sufficient down payment, he needs to pay extra Mortgage Insurance on his loan from the bank? Will you compensate him for that? My recommendation, if you haven't caught it yet, is Do not do this. Your potential savings are not going to be worth the potential heartache of breaking your relationship with your brother. Instead, look at joining your minds, not your money. Set goals for yourselves individually, and hold each other accountable. Make this an open conversation between yourselves, as it can be difficult to talk about finances with other people. Your support will help the other person, and hopefully help keep you on track as well. To provide numerical context for potential savings, which you appear to still want, consider the numbers you've provided [you have 40k debt at 10%, your brother has 20k of debt at 5%]. Let's assume you each can pay up to 20k against the principal of your loans each year. Finally assume for simplicity that you also have enough to pay off interest as it gets charged [so no compounding], and you pay in even instalments each year. Mathematically that means your interest each year is equal to your interest rate * your average annual balance. If you each go alone, then you will accrue 10% on an average balance of [(40k+20k)/2] = 30k per year, which equals 3,000 in interest in year 1, then [(20k+0)/2] = 10k * .10 = 1,000 interest in year 2. Total interest for you = 4,000. Your brother will accrue [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 = 500 in interest in total. Total interest for both of you combined would be 4,500. If you pool your debt snowball, then you will clear your debt first. So the interest on your debt would be [(40k+0k)/2] = 20k * .1 = 2,000. Your brother's debt would fully accrue 5% of interest on the full balance in year 1, so interest in year 1 would be 20k * .05 = 1,000. In year 2, your brother's debt would be cleared half way through the year; interest charged would be [(20k+0k)/2] = 10k * .05 * 50% = 250. You would then owe your brother 10k, which you would pay him over the remainder of year 2. His total interest paid to the bank would be 1,000 + 250 = 1,250. Total interest for both of you combined would be 3,250. In a simplified payment example using your numbers, maximum interest savings would be about $1,250 combined. How you allocate those savings would be pretty subjective; assuming a 50:50 split, this yields $625 in savings to each of you. If you aren't able to each save 20k per year, then savings would be greater for snowballing, because otherwise it will take you even longer to pay off your high interest debt. This is similar to your brother loaning you 20k today that you can use to pay off your debts, after which you pay him back so he can pay off his. Because you will owe him 20k for 2 years, but an average of ~10k at any one time [because he slowly advances it to you today, and you slowly pay him back until the end of year 2], at $650 in benefit passed to your brother, this is roughly equivalent to him loaning you money at 6.5% interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1ab0610af01423819120f6e5160ea3d", "text": "\"fire your brother's friend and get another accounting major who'll listen to orders and won't try anything dodgy. You might have to pay well for that. Make sure your whole family is on the same page with future plans EDIT: I just read that you think your brother is going to do a takeover. It's your family's business. He's your brother. It's not really a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". If you don't trust your own brother you have to work on the relationship not the business. EDIT 2: I checked your profile. Stop doing drugs\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "654174b5239db25f62a839b71216c9ba", "text": "\"First of all you do not \"\"co-sign a car\"\". I assume what you mean by this is that you co-signed a loan, and the money was used to buy a car. Once you signed that loan YOU OWED THE MONEY. Once a loan exists, it exists, and you will owe the money until the loan is paid. If you do not want to owe the money, then you need to pay back the money you borrowed. You may not think \"\"you\"\" borrowed the money because the car went to someone else. THE BANK AND THE COURTS DO NOT CARE. All they care about is that YOU signed the loan, so as far as they are concerned YOU owe the money and you owe ALL of the money to the bank, and the only way to change that is to pay the money back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3bc876d5188dcdeb7453975b40e5e2b", "text": "There are a number of ways you could do this. The first step is to work out what a fair price is. Either make an estimate that you both accept, possibly getting a real estate agent to give you a free evaluation, or get a professional evaluation from some you both accept. Once you have a valuation, the simplest of course is to pay your brother that value (in return for his transferring his ownership to you). Hopefully you have that much money in savings. If you don't have that money (but do have income) you may need to take a mortgage, which would put your home at risk. If the pollution you speak of hasn't been fixed a mortgage may be out of the question. An alternative, if you have income, and your brother doesn't need the money right now, is to make the money you owe him for the house a loan from him to you. He transfers his ownership of the house to you, you pay him its value, but he simultaneously loans you that exact same amount. No actual money needs to change hands. You would make him a regular payment, essentially the interest on that loan, and also make an agreement to pay off the principal of the loan (i.e. the value of the house) when the house is sold, or when you pass away. While you could do this informally if everyone agrees, it would be much better to make a legal agreement, so that everybody is exactly sure what they are expecting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2cf81c153c54c9234313f8aa4c5e512", "text": "Get a lawyer to put this in contract form, with everything spelled out explicitly. What is fair is what the two of you agree upon. My own suggestion: Divide the property into things which are yours, his, and shared, then have each of you be responsible for all your costs plus half the shared costs, but get all the benefits of your half. That would mean that if he rents out his half, all the rental income is his; if you decide to live in your half, all the savings of not paying rent are yours. Each of you pays your half of mortgage, insurance, and other shared costs. Repairs to shared infrastructure should be done by someone both of you trust. If you agree the work is needed and he does it rather than your hiring someone, you owe him the appropriate percentage of the costs; the two of you will need to agree on whether you owe him for that percentage of his time as well. Make sure you agree on some mechanism for one person offering to buy the other out, or to sell their half to the other party... or potentially to someone else entirely. (Personally, I would try to do that at soonest opportunity, to avoid some of the ways this can go wrong -- see past comments about the hazards of guaranteeing a loan; this works or doesn't work similarly.) Does that address your question?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "089e09bc3048285825e573e2d87ea2c2", "text": "\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "621c06db76d9442ff03a55f023763739", "text": "It sounds like you want to lock-up your money in something relatively safe, and relatively hard to touch. You may want to consider a GIC (TD has one I found in a quick search) - from what I see it's the closest thing to a US CD. You won't get much back, but if you pick a 5-year term, you can't spend it* easily. Other options might be to buy an ETF, or get into REITs - but that will depend on your risk comfort. Also - to add from the comment Rick left - be sure to pay off any high-interest debts: especially if they're on a credit card, it will help you later on. * easily .. you can withdraw, but there're generally penalties", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f013cf7af822b69d7b8898eab4a7e0a7", "text": "I know an answer has been accepted, but you need an emergency fund, ideally enough to cover at least 3 months of after-tax basic living expenses. As a free-lancer, 6 months would be even better. This isn't a fun way to tie up your money, but it is a prudent way. What if you lose your job, or decide you want to change your line of work? What if you're told a close family member has only months to live and you want to take significant time off unpaid? What if your car breaks down and you need a new one? What if your freelance business hits a dry patch for a few months? What if you want to move but can't sell your next house quickly? I've known people who had these types of situations come up unexpectedly. Some were financially prepared and had the freedom to make the choices they wanted to make, others didn't and now have regrets. Once you have a basic emergency fund in place, then go for investing with the rest of the money. Best of luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee81ad8802ed6f280b3817d3e61c655c", "text": "First pay off all existing debt. Then set up at least 6 month emergency fund. Freelancing exposes you to way more risks than employment. Then buy GIC's to cover and match the maturity of your expected education fees. Only 'play' with what is left. Don't over think it. Buy a low-cost (less than 0.5%) passive large-index mutual fund covering either the S&P or TSX.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e20bda2b9348c44c284bb75dc8e4a975", "text": "If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86cc49b09050e154d0e41b6e2828d838", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5069019873055d17bce6fac7e64c7c24", "text": "You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6913ee4ec4b8cc12d1a45e16e86dc931", "text": "\"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "534291474b685dc36e50919879690f79", "text": "Disclaimer: I’m not an expert. This is my basic understanding, which I’m sure someone will be glad to tell is horribly wrong... You need an LLC. Many people in my area create an LLC management company, then create individual LLCs for each investment property. Laws vary by state. YMMV Then you start researching properties. Commercial loans typically require a higher equity position than home ownership. Assume minimum 30%. For ease of this conversation let’s say you’re making the horribly poor decision to put that towards a single property. You’d be looking for a property in the 175-200k value range, because you’ll need to account for settlement expenses (attorney, broker, consultants) and a cash reserve. You’d be also be looking for what the average cap rate is for your market. In simplistic terms cap rate is the expected rate of return after expenses. So if the average market cap rate in that region for comparable properties is 5%, you can expect around 5% return on your investment, after you pay fees, maintenance, taxes, insurance, interest, etc. Buy a property and hold that property for a few years, making money every year, and claiming deductions on your earnings for something called depreciation. Fast forward 5 years and you’re ready to sell, the value of your property went up because you made improvements along the way, brought in some better tenants who are paying higher rents, and now you can offer a better cap rate than your competitors. You sell in the blink of an eye, and double your investment. Say you have $500k now sitting in the bank in you LLC’s name, in cash. You can either choose to cash out 100% and pay capital gains tax on your earnings above your basis (at 15% I think?)... OR you can quickly find a new property with that $500k, purchase it, and file a 1031, which says you don’t have to pay ANY capital gains on those earnings. You just increased income significantly without ever paying taxes on the underlying increase in value of your assets. Rinse and repeat for 25 years, develop a portfolio of properties, create a management company so you can stop paying others a percentage of your earnings, and you too can have the problem of too much money. I welcome anyone with actual knowledge of the topic to please expound on, or correct me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6", "text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86a0aae8eac884e09f5e660cbe3e77f8", "text": "You can expect about a 7% return when investing in the general market if your horizon is ten years or more. The market fluctuates, which means that you should be absolutely fine with losing 10% or more of your invested money during this period. You say yourself that: I have been setting aside money (...) into a savings account earmarked for that purpose (repairs/maintenance) so that I don't have to take out loans. It's obvious from your question that the purpose of this money is not savings, this is money that you are already investing, not in stocks or bonds but in your house. While this money sits around, of course you could put it into the market and hope that it grows. It all depends on your horizon, which in your case sounds like about 1 year. Is that long enough to be fairly sure you will make a profit? From what I've written so far, hopefully you can gather that the answer is no. If you choose to invest $6,000 but you need that money back in one year, you need to be aware of the risk that you'll instead end up with $5,400 or even less. Your options are then to: If you're asking for personal advice, my opinion would be this: you're already investing in your house. The housing market, like most markets, fluctuate. Whether you like it or not, you're already a victim (or benefactor) of this value fluctuation. The difference is that a house is something you'll live in for a long time (probably), that will give you daily joy in a way stocks and bonds won't. Of course, saving up money and investing them is always a good idea anyway. You should still save a small amount every month and put it into low/medium risk bonds, in my opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f05a577b8e104eb30a83b40795f6836", "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.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11f43f32825eead66ad9471abfbb0e4f", "text": "Hmm, if your financially savvy enough to have saved up half a million dollars, I'd think you would be savvy enough to spend it wisely. :-) I think I'd spend the cash before running down stocks and bonds, as cash almost surely has a lower rate of return. I'd look into what rate of return you're getting on the rental property versus what you're getting from other investments. If the rental property has a lower return, I'd sell that before selling off stocks. (I own a rental property on which I am losing money every month. I'm still paying a mortgage on it, but even without that, the ROI would be about 4% under current market conditions.) Besides that, your plan looks good to me. Might need to add, 8. Beg on the streets, and 9. Burglary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98436d927ef8f40a37a2a7e660ec9003", "text": "I don't like paying a house off early. Houses are quite illiquid investments. Lose your job, you can't get the money out. Housing prices go down, can't get your money out. Etc. You are in a better state owing 50k more on a house and with 50k in the bank, and if that money gets you in the habit of savings and investing, all the better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e9d51f5d01bddba46fc1ea96a54e20", "text": "\"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a \"\"good investment\"\", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b463b0f734e7d008506b1e57b6c5756", "text": "\"(Congrats on earning/saving $3K and not wanting to blow it all on immediate gratification!) I currently have it invested in sector mutual funds but with the rise and fall of the stock market, is this really the best way to prepare long-term? Long-term? Yes! However... four years is not long term. It is, in fact, borderline short term. (When I was your age, that was incomprehensible too, but trust me: it's true.) The problem is that there's an inverse relationship between reward and risk: the higher the possible reward, the greater the risk that you'll lose a big chunk of it. I invest that middle-term money in a mix of junk high yield bond funds and \"\"high\"\" yield savings accounts at an online bank. My preferences are HYG purchased at Fidelity (EDIT: because it's commission-free and I buy a few hundred dollars worth every month), and Ally Bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b9e1b14c98aa0813d39fed38251fb95", "text": "\"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec4040c3ac8334ab36c650435360cd4", "text": "\"As Dilip said, if you want actual concrete, based in tax law, answers, please add the country (and if applicable, state) where you pay income tax. Also, knowing what tax bracket you're in would help as well, although I certainly understand if you're not comfortable sharing that. So, assuming the US... If you're in the 10% or 15% tax bracket, then you're already not paying any federal tax on the $3k long term gain, so purposely taking losses is pointless, and given that there's probably a cost to taking the loss (commission, SEC fee), you'd be losing money by doing so. Also, you won't be able to buy back the loser for 31 days without having the loss postponed due to the wash sale that would result. State tax is another matter, but (going by the table in this article), even using the highest low end tax rate (Tennessee at 6%), the $50 loss would only save you $3, which is probably less than the commission to sell the loser, so again you'd be losing money. And if you're in a state with no state income tax, then the loss wouldn't save you anything on taxes at the state level, but of course you'll still be paying to be able to take the loss. On the high end, you'd be saving 20% federal tax and 13.3% state tax (using the highest high end tax state, California, and ignoring (because I don't know :-) ) whether they tax long-term capital gains at the same rate as regular income or not), you'd be saving $50 * (20% + 13.3%) = $50 * 33.3% = $16.65. So for taxes, you're looking at saving between nothing and $16.65. And then you have to subtract from that the cost to achieve the loss, so even on the high end (which means (assuming a single filer)) you're making >$1 million), you're only saving about $10, and you're probably actually losing money. So I personally don't think taking a $50 loss to try to decrease taxes makes sense. However, if you really meant $500 or $5000, then it might (although if you're in the 10-15% brackets in a no income tax state, even then it wouldn't). So the answer to your final question is, \"\"It depends.\"\" The only way to say for sure is, based on the country and state you're in, calculate what it will save you (if anything). As a general rule, you want to avoid letting the tax tail wag the dog. That is, your financial goal should be to end up with the most money, not to pay the least taxes. So while looking at the tax consequences of a transaction is a good idea, don't look at just the tax consequences, look at the consequences for your overall net worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19db6fb40b0e627a0ddfc56aeb1268a1", "text": "\"I would be more than happy to find a good use for your money. ;-) Well, you have a bunch of money far in excess of your regular expenses. The standard things are usually: If you are very confused, it's probably worth spending some of your windfall to hire professional help. It beats you groping in the dark and possibly doing something stupid. But as you've seen, not all \"\"professionals\"\" are equal, and finding a good one is another can of worms. If you can find a good one, it's probably worth it. Even better would be for you to take the time and thoroughly educate yourself about investment (by reading books), and then make a knowledgeable decision. Being a casual investor (ie. not full time trader) you will likely arrive, like many do, at a portfolio that is mostly a mix of S&P ETFs and high grade (eg. govt and AAA corporate) bonds, with a small part (5% or so) in individual stock and other more complicated securities. A good financial advisor will likely recommend something similar (I've had good luck with the one at my credit union), and can guide you through the details and technicalities of it all. A word of caution: Since you remark about your car and house, be careful about upgrading your lifestyle. Business is good now and you can afford nicer things, but maybe next year it's not so good. What if you are by then too used to the high life to give it up, and end up under mountains of debt? Humans are naturally optimistic, but be wary of this tendency when making assumptions about what you will be able to afford in the future. That said, if you really have no idea, hey, take a nice vacation, get an art tutor for the kids, spend it (well, ideally not all of it) on something you won't regret. Investments are fickle, any asset can crash tomorrow and ruin your day. But often experiences are easier to judge, and less likely to lose value over time.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f8a3b86208adcc243e3092e47447862d", "text": "It seems like there are a few different things going on here because there are multiple parties involved with different interests. The car loan almost surely has the car itself as collateral, so, if you stop paying, the bank can claim the car to cover their costs. Since your car is now totaled, however, that collateral is essentially gone and your loan is probably effectively dead already. The bank isn't going let you keep the money against a totaled car. I suspect this is what the adjuster meant when he said you cannot keep the car because of the loan. The insurance company sounds like they're going to pay the claim, but once they pay on a totaled car, they own it. They have some plan for how they recover partial costs from the wreck. That may or may not allow you (or anyone else) to buy it from them. For example, they might have some bulk sale deal with a salvage company that doesn't allow them to sell back to you, they may have liability issues with selling a wrecked car, etc. Whatever is going on here should be separate from your loan and related to the business model of your insurance company. If you do have an option to buy the car back, it will almost surely be viewed as a new purchase by the insurances company and your lender, as if you bought a different car in similar condition.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5b5a8ab3129653aeba03d641f4caf4ed", "text": "The article made it seem like a lot of these were frivolous purchases, but I doubt there's any clear data on the percent that were someone's primary vehicle, etc. Usually if you default on a new-car loan you can still get a high-interest loan for a used car that will still be a lot less than your old payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46129c258ecb12f5a85af074100f5744", "text": "\"This will probably require asking the SO to sign a quitclaim and/or to \"\"sell\"\" him her share of the vehicle's ownership and getting it re-titled in his own name alone, which is the question you actually asked. To cancel the cosigner arrangement, he has to pay off the loan. If he can't or doesn't want to do that in cash, he'd have to qualify for a new loan to refinasnce in his name only, or get someone else (such as yourself) to co-sign. Alternatively, he might sell the car (or something else) to pay what he still owes on it. As noted in other answers, this kind of mess is why you shouldn't get into either cosigning or joint ownership without a written agreement spelling out exactly what happens should one of the parties wish to end this arrangement. Doing business with friends is still doing business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3d1d1655a87ac529a48a251da092425", "text": "It's always hard to know the exact policy terms, but as a general rule there are two main contributions to insurance payouts. The first part covers expenses aimed at restoring the situation to its previous state pre-incident. This may include repair work and materials etcetera. The second part kicks in when it's not reasonably possible to repair the damage, or at least not in a financially efficient way. In this case, the insurer can decide to pay out the decrease in value. This is in fact very common in car accidents, where the car is a total loss. In your case, it's quite possible that your roof, even with the two partial repairs is in a worse condition than it was before the storm. For instance, the new shingles may not match the old ones exactly. Thus the value of your home has decreased despite the reasonable repair attempt. And as mhoran_psprep points out, there can be hidden damage as well, which is a lurking liability. If you've accepted the cash payment in lieu of a full repair, you also accept the roof in its new condition.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cb703e814782a743951ba7064011bcc", "text": "\"Once the examination is done, it is recommended to begin calling around to different purchasers. The most solid reestablished auto purchasers are scrap auto evacuation organizations, scrap terraces, and \"\"money for autos\"\" administrations. These are the parts that compensation the most for rescued, assaulted, and trashed vehicles and furthermore give junk car quote. It is critical to contact a few associations, additionally in the event that they are not in your general vicinity. This sort of research will offer you a thought for the going rate of the piece vehicle you have and the condition it stays in; at that point you could unquestionably recognize reasonable offers and forthcoming cheats. They ended up being the best cash for Cars Company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4617e5812c24d543cd5c3ebfba0fd532", "text": "You buy a $100k sport car, but don't buy any insurance. You take a curve too fast and jump out just in time to see your car go off a cliff, like a chase movie. The value went from $100k to zero in seconds. Where did the $100k go?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3796ebab3370b9916c28dc5d95cf556", "text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cee712904c22253683819c081aae7fc", "text": "I've been an F&I Manager at a new car dealership for over ten years, and I can tell you this with absolute certainty, your deal is final. There is no legal obligation for you whatsoever. I see this post is a few weeks old so I am sure by now you already know this to be true, but for future reference in case someone in a similar situation comes across this thread, they too will know. This is a completely different situation to the ones referenced earlier in the comments on being called by the dealer to return the vehicle due to the bank not buying the loan. That only pertains to customers who finance, the dealer is protected there because on isolated occasions, which the dealer hates as much as the customer, trust me, you are approved on contingency that the financing bank will approve your loan. That is an educated guess the finance manager makes based on credit history and past experience with the bank, which he is usually correct on. However there are times, especially late afternoon on Fridays when banks are preparing to close for the weekend the loan officer may not be able to approve you before closing time, in which case the dealer allows you to take the vehicle home until business is back up and running the following Monday. He does this mostly to give you sense of ownership, so you don't go down the street to the next dealership and go home in one of their vehicles. However, there are those few instances for whatever reason the bank decides your credit just isn't strong enough for the rate agreed upon, so the dealer will try everything he can to either change to a different lender, or sell the loan at a higher rate which he has to get you to agree upon. If neither of those two things work, he will request that you return the car. Between the time you sign and the moment a lender agrees to purchase your contract the dealer is the lien holder, and has legal rights to repossession, in all 50 states. Not to mention you will sign a contingency contract before leaving that states you are not yet the owner of the car, probably not in so many simple words though, but it will certainly be in there before they let you take a car before the finalizing contract is signed. Now as far as the situation of the OP, you purchased your car for cash, all documents signed, the car is yours, plain and simple. It doesn't matter what state you are in, if he's cashed the check, whatever. The buyer and seller both signed all documents stating a free and clear transaction. Your business is done in the eyes of the law. Most likely the salesman or finance manager who signed paperwork with you, noticed the error and was hoping to recoup the losses from a young novice buyer. Regardless of the situation, it is extremely unprofessional, and clearly shows that this person is very inexperienced and reflects poorly on management as well for not doing a better job of training their employees. When I started out, I found myself in somewhat similar situations, both times I offered to pay the difference of my mistake, or deduct it from my part of the sale. The General Manager didn't take me up on my offer. He just told me we all make mistakes and to just learn from it. Had I been so unprofessional to call the customer and try to renegotiate terms, I would have without a doubt been fired on the spot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7421f097b776fb34d00007b3fe10bb32", "text": "I haven't looked at that warranty in detail, but generally speaking this should help. What is GAP insurance? In the case of a total loss/write off gap insurance covers the outstanding finance after your regular insurance pay out. The two won't match up usually because of the depreciation right after you buy the car. For example, if you take out $20,000 finance and buy a car, then write it off after six months, your insurance company may only value it at $16,000 but it's unlikely you will have cleared $4,000 from your finance. Gap insurance will pay out the difference and settle the debt. Will Chrysler change the engine, if it comes to bhore? Yes, unless they identify misuse or deliberate damage. For instance, if you do 1000 miles and the engine explodes, it's a mechanical fault that the warranty would cover. If they open up the engine/look at diagnostics and find it's been thrashed to within an inch of it's life, they may claim it was your driving which has destroyed the engine and you would have to prove it was an underlying fault and would have blown either way. Will car dents be covered with this bumper to bumper insurance? Not likely, as I mentioned in the last point, if it's your fault it wouldn't be covered. I think you may be confusing the terms insurance and warranty at this point. Insurance would cover your dents but a warranty only covers the manufacturer's faults, even in the case of extended warranties. What does basic mean in terms of warranty? Sounds obvious, but whatever Chrysler want it to mean! There's no legal definition of 'basic' so you would need to check the documents thoroughly or ask them to explain exactly what is and isn't covered. If they're reluctant, it's probably because 'basic' covers very little...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54df40bf61e056d37576ccc99111fa4c", "text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85110d666ba177dfbde6ed4aae613120", "text": "Yes, truckloads of cash. /s It's exactly the same as your example, when people say to pay for a car in cash, they don't meany physical bills, but rather the idea that you aren't getting a loan. In most acquisitions, the buyer will usually pay with their own stock, pay in cash, or a combination of both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2335e2302d6eee2c43c7bfdc105a902e", "text": "As mhoran_psprep and others have already said, it sounds like the sale is concluded and your son has no obligation to return the car or pay a dime more. The only case in which your son should consider returning the car is if it works in his favor--for example, if he is able to secure a similar bargain on a different car and the current dealer buys the current car back from your son at a loss. If the dealer wants to buy the car back, your son should first get them to agree to cover any fees already incurred by your son. After that, he should negotiate that the dealer split the remaining difference with him. Suppose the dealership gave a $3000 discount, and your son paid $1000 in title transfer, registration, and any other fees such as a cashier's check or tax, if applicable. The remaining difference is $2000. Your son should get half that. In this scenario, the dealer only loses half as much money, and your son gains $1000 for his trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e401a8ff82d95f592eab06973e952461", "text": "While this question is old and I generally agree with the answers given I think there's another angle that needs a little illuminating: insurance. If you go with an 84 month loan your car will likely be worth less than the amount owed for substantially all of the entire 84 month loan period; this will be exacerbated if you put zero down and include the taxes and fees in the amount borrowed. Your lender will require you to carry full comprehensive/collision/liability coverage likely with a low maximum deductible. While the car is underwater it will probably also be a good idea to carry gap insurance because the last thing you want to do is write a check to your lender to shore up the loan to value deficit if the thing is totaled. These long term car loans (I've seen as high as 96 months) are a bear when it comes to depreciation and related insurance costs. There is more to this decision than the interest calculation. Obviously, if you had the cash at the front of this decision presumably you'll have the cash later to pay off the loan at your convenience. But while the loan is outstanding there are costs beyond interest to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78c7b2bf71f314407d951a11d5e096fb", "text": "\"It's possible the $16,000 was for more than the car. Perhaps extras were added on at purchase time; or perhaps they were folded into the retail price of the car. Here's an example. 2014: I'm ready to buy. My 3-year-old trade-in originally cost $15,000, and I financed it for 6 years and still owe $6500. It has lots of miles and excess wear, so fair blue-book is $4500. I'm \"\"upside down\"\" by $2000, meaning I'd have to pay $2000 cash just to walk away from the car. I'll never have that, because I'm not a saver. So how can we get you in a new car today? Dealer says \"\"If you pay the full $15,000 retail price plus $1000 of worthless dealer add-ons like wax undercoat (instead of the common discounted $14,000 price), I'll eat your $2000 loss on the trade.\"\" All gets folded into my new car financing. It's magic! (actually it's called rollover.) 2017: I'm getting itchy to trade up, and doggone it, I'm upside down on this car. Why does this keep happening to me? In this case, it's rollover and other add-ons, combined with too-long car loans (6 year), combined with excessive mileage and wear on the vehicle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee60151939fc8a15f134d44755e021c1", "text": "$27,000 for a car?! Please, don't do that to yourself! That sounds like a new-car price. If it is, you can kiss $4k-$5k of that price goodbye the moment you drive it off the lot. You'll pay the worst part of the depreciation on that vehicle. You can get a 4-5 year old Corolla (or similar import) for less than half that price, and if you take care of it, you can get easily another 100k miles out of it. Check out Dave Ramsey's video. (It's funny that the car payment he chooses as his example is the same one as yours: $475! ;) ) I don't buy his take on the 12% return on the stock market (which is fantasy in my book) but buying cars outright instead of borrowing or (gasp) leasing, and working your way up the food chain a bit with the bells/whistles/newness of your cars, is the way to go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92ae2f7b8529560c43c556fdb3d354ad", "text": "Everything on Earth can go wrong. Including, god forbids, your MIL being hit by a bus the next day and your ex inheriting all of her belongings and none of her promises to you. This is a bad idea. What I would suggest doing would be for your MIL to buy your ex a cheap and simple clunker to move herself around without you being ever involved. If you still want to go into this adventure, I'd advise to do these things: A written contract with MIL that details all the terms and agreements. Cover the potential unfortunate events like the one I made up in the first sentence. A written contract with your ex about how and when she can use your car. Insurance to cover all the potential damages and liabilities she can cause, in your name, with her as additional insured. Be ready to bear all the costs associated with the car. You're not a co-signer in this scenario - you're the only signer. The dealership will come after you and you alone.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d6f71dff8db4673fa34062138bb0397c", "text": "Consumerist posted a list of how long to keep bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "425030da8e9d713084ca7d3e8ef48786", "text": "In general, you don't need to keep bills around for more than a few months. The exceptions are: anything that was itemized on your federal or state income taxes. You want to keep these around for seven years in case of an audit by the IRS brokerage statements buying/selling stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. You need to know how much you bought a stock for when you sell it, to calculate capital gains. information relating to major renovations to your house. This can be used to reduce the gain when you sell. anything relating to a business, again for tax and valuation purposes. When selling a house, the last years worth of utility bills might be useful, to show potential buyers. However, I get almost all of my recurring bills electronically now. They get saved and backed up. In that case, its easier to just keep everything than to selectively delete stuff. It takes very little space, is easier to find things than in paper files, and is much less hassle when moving than boxes full of paper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2465242ad149367aa4cf800261fd814b", "text": "In normal cases you don't need it beyond 3-6 months. Beyond this destroy it. However in certain cases its required to be kept; For example if you need to prove that you are legally occupying a place/property and do not have relevant documents, the utility receipts can play a role in establishing that you were occupying a place and using it. In case you are not originaly a resident by birth, and your citizenship is at dispute, these records help. More so if the records are not maintained properly by the utitlity companies themsleves as in most developing countries. In India, these help for many individual who are occupying goverment properties for decades and then resolution is passed that people staying for past 25 yrs now own it, other become illegal and are evicted. For such cases, you could keep a history record say one per year, for past 5 years, and then one for every 5 year of a particular month ... basically in a systematic way. Other than that, just junk them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d072016a2ccc2726e7b3018546b815db", "text": "I'd imagine you want to keep the utility bills around to dispute any historical billing errors or anomalies for perhaps 6 months to a year. Beyond that, you always have the financial records of making the payments -- namely, your bank statements. So what benefit is there in keeping the paper receipts for utility payments around for longer than that? I say shred them, with extreme prejudice -- while wearing black Chuck Norris style.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab1ec05f4e7fd0f7cefbed8358144d4", "text": "Shred it all. You might want to keep a record going back at most a year, just in case. But just in case of what? What is a good idea is to have an electronic record. It's a good practice to know how your spending changes over time. Beyond that, it's just a fire hazard. The thing is, I know I'm right in the above paragraph, but I'm a hypocrite: I have years' worth of paper records of all kinds. I need to get rid of it. But I have grown attached. I have trucked this stuff around in move after move. I have a skill at taking good care of useless things. I've even thought of hiring somebody to scan it all in for me, so that I can feel safe shredding all this paper without losing any of the data. But that's insane!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a9be848b4054ffe1f5af563fcd6422f6", "text": "\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ede24800b5d80033c81f06e9d0f3a38", "text": "When you submit for reimbursement, the cash you get should be FIFO (first in, first out) and a large bill should empty out 2011 first, automatically tapping 12 for remaining amount owed. I doubt you need to do anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980e72af287f4721cab7f12cd052186e", "text": "You will often receive a lower bill if you simply wait for a second or third billing statement. I was once given the advice to never pay a medical bill until after they had sent three notices, because they will almost certainly reduce the amount due. Sounds crazy, right? I have excellent credit, so the idea of risking it by ignoring bills disturbed me greatly, and I scoffed at the advice. I then had a similar experience to you, and decided to take the advice. By the third statement, the bill was reduced to less than half of the original, with zero intervention on my part. I then paid it without any impact to my credit whatsoever. I've since done that every time I receive healthcare services, and the bill is always reduced on subsequent statements, generally to less than half of the original bill. Sometimes it's because insurance finally got around to paying. Sometimes a credit is mysteriously added. Sometimes line items disappear without explanation. (Line items sometimes appear over time, too, but the overall balance generally goes down.) I don't know the reason for it, but it works. This has happened with a variety of providers, so it's not just one company that does it. Granted, I never called to negotiate the price, so I can't say if I would've gotten a better deal by doing that. I like it because it requires no time or effort on my part, and it has greatly reduced my medical bills with zero impact to my credit. I only have personal anecdotes to back it up, but it's worked for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4217855657af5723dd47f882f3a402fb", "text": "\"There is not one right way. It depends on the level of detail that you need. One way would be: Create the following accounts: When you pay the phone bill: When you are paid with the reimbursement: That is, when you pay the phone bill, you must debit BOTH phone expense to record the expense, and also reimbursements due to record the fact that someone now owes you money. If it's useful you could add another layer of complexity: When you receive the bill you have a liability, and when you pay it you discharge that liability. Whether that's worth keeping track of depends. I never do for month-to-month bills. Afterthought: I see another poster says that your method is incorrect because a reimbursement is not salary. Technically true, though that problem could be fixed by renaming the account to something like \"\"income from employer\"\". The more serious problem I see is that you are reversing the phone expense when you are reimbursed. So at the end of the year you will show total phone expense as $0. This is clearly not correct -- you did have phone expenses, they were just reimbursed. You really are treating the expense account as an asset account -- \"\"phone expenses due to be reimbursed by employer\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cab14cff8db3d4a0821bc301a700ba4b", "text": "I err on the side of saving all of mine for a while. Just toss them in a box at least. A years' worth is about the size of a shoebox. I started doing this because one year, about a week after I tossed my receipts for the year, I realized that I had a fair bit of allotment left on my flexible savings account to use up. I could have used those to substantiate over-the-counter medicines I purchased. Even if you don't use them for tax purposes, you can use them for budget-tracking purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f92a79f53d8f78839f6fc06c3529306", "text": "I think this varies considerably depending on your situation. I've heard people say 6 month's living expenses, and I know Suze Orman recommended bumping that to 8 months in our current economy. My husband and I have no children, lots of student loan debts, but we pay off our credit cards in full each month and are working to save up for a house. We've talked through a few different what-if scenarios. If one of us were to lose our job, we have savings to cover the difference between our reduced income and paying the bills for 6 or 8 months while the other person regained employment. If both of us were to lose our jobs simultaneously, our savings wouldn't hold us over for more than 3 or 4 months, but if that were to happen, we would likely take advantage of the opportunity to relocate closer to our families, and possibly even move in to my parent's house for a short time. With no children and no mortgage, our commitments are few, so I don't feel the need to have a very large emergency cash fund, especially with student loans to pay off. Think through a few scenarios for your life and see what you would need. Take into consideration expenses to break a rental lease, cell phone contract, or other commitments. Then, start saving toward your goal. Also see answers to a similar question here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4d0c174c50cc545ba42074ac6553474", "text": "If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "552c97f6a717f65fe5560ea03fd90c76", "text": "\"I think we'd need to look at actual numbers to see where you're running into trouble. I'm also a little confused by your use of the term \"\"unexpected expenses\"\". You seem to be using that to describe expenses that are quite regular, that occur every X months, and so are totally expected. But assuming this is just some clumsy wording ... Here's the thing: Start out by taking the amount of each expense, divided by the number of months between occurrences. This is the monthly cost of each expense. Add all these up. This is the amount that you should be setting aside every month for these expenses, once you get a \"\"base amount\"\" set up. So to take a simple example: Say you have to pay property taxes of $1200 twice a year. So that's $1200 every 6 months = $200 per month. Also say you have to pay a water bill once every 3 months that's typically $90. So $90 divided by 3 = $30. Assuming that was it, in the long term you'd need to put aside $230 per month to stay even. I say \"\"in the long term\"\" because when you're just starting, you need to put aside an amount sufficient that your balance won't fall below zero. The easiest way to do this is to just set up a chart where you start from zero and add (in this example) $230 each month, and then subtract the amount of the bills when they will hit. Do this for some reasonable time in the future, say one year. Find the biggest negative balance. If you can add this amount to get started, you'll be safe. If not, add this amount divided by the number of months from now until it occurs and make that a temporary addition to your deposits. Check if you now are safely always positive. If not, repeat the process for the next biggest negative. For example, let's say the property tax bills are April and October and the water bills are February, May, August, and November. Then your chart would look like this: The biggest negative is -370 in April. So you have to add $370 in the first 4 months, or $92.50 per month. Let's say $93. That would give: Now you stay at least barely above water for the whole year. You could extend the chart our further, but odds are the exact numbers will change next year and you'll have to recalculate anyway. The more irregular the expenses, the more you will build up just before the big expense hits. But that's the whole point of saving for these, right? If a $1200 bill is coming next week and you don't have close to $1200 saved up in the account, where is the money coming from? If you have enough spare cash that you can just take the $1200 out of what you would have spent on lunch tomorrow, then you don't need this sort of account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf711eb301fb89dc44c7273252095614", "text": "\"Whatever the percentage divisions are, I'm a big fan of keeping things in separate accounts. This works especially well for fixed bills. It is essentially a bank account version of the envelope method. If I take out everything from your paycheck I know is reserved (including reserving savings), for me it is a lot easier to not even miss the money when I'm going towards \"\"fun\"\" expenditures - which come from the checking account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25d8a6bc03bcee11387a8f0d2e9c1679", "text": "\"As others have said, the decision is a very personal one. Personally, I think you have a good idea. For those of us that thrive in structured systems having a detailed breakdown and distribution of assets is a great idea. I recommend going one step further however. Instead of having a single \"\"Necessities\"\" account have a division here. 1 account for \"\"Bills\"\" and another for \"\"Living Expenses.\"\" Your Bills account should recieve the funds to pay your monthly expenses such as Rent, Utilities, Insurance. Living Expenses is for day to day spending. I recommend this because your Bills are generally a fairly fixed expense. Keeping your flexible spending separate allows you to manage it more carefully and helps prevent overspending. I keep my Living Expenses in cash and divide it up by the number of days before my next check. Every day I put my portion of the Living Expenses in my wallet. This way I know that I can spend as much money in my wallet and still be fine for the rest of the pay period. I also know that if I want to go out to a nice dinner on Friday, it would be helpful if I have money left over at the end of the day Monday through Thursday.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a702ae39a8a56ed6a16382e15bb6b7dd", "text": "Pay it off. You are never penalized for paying a loan off early. Most credit records stay on your reports for 7 years, with the exception of certain negative ones, which stick around for 10.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ca33c5438a226b77697ac71c63cfd6f", "text": "\"In this answer, I won't elaborate on the possibilities of fraud (or pure human error), because something can always go wrong. I will, however, explain why I think you should always keep receipts. When the (monthly or so) time comes to pay your credit card bill, your credit card company sends you a list of transactions. That list has two primary purposes, both of which I would consider equally important: While for the former item, a receipt is not necessary (though it certainly does not hurt showing the receipt along with the bill to provide further proof that the payment was indeed connected to that bill), the latter point does require you to store the receipts so you can check, item-by-item, whether each of the sums is correct (and matched with a receipt at all). So, unless you can actually memorize all the credit card transactions you did throughout the past one or two months, the receipts are the most convenient way of keeping that information until the bill arrives. Yes, your credit card company probably has some safeguards in place to reveal fraud, which might kick in in time (the criteria are mostly heuristical, it seems, with credit cards or legitimate transactions here getting blocked every now and then simply because some travelling of the actual owner was misinterpreted as theft). However, it is your money, it is your responsibility to discover any issues with the bill, just as you would check the monthly transaction list from your bank account line by line. Ultimately, that is why you sign the vendor copy of the receipt when buying something offline; if you discover an issue in your list of transactions, you have to notify your credit card company that you dispute one of the charges, and then the charging vendor has to show that they have your signature for the respective transaction. So, to summarize: Do keep your receipts, use them to check the list of transactions before paying your credit card bill. EDIT: The receipt often cannot be replaced with the bill from the vendor. The bill is useful for seeing how the sum charged by the respective vendor was created, but in turn, such bills often do not contain any payment information, or (when payment was concluded before the bill was printed, as sometimes happens in pre-paid scenarios such as hotel booking) nondescript remarks such as \"\"- PAYMENT RECEIVED -\"\", without any further indication of which one of your credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, stored value cards, or cash was used.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3c640216beeb00bd08cb60a0865847", "text": "It will not hurt your score to pay off your debt. It will allow your score to start healing as you plug the holes in your report. What is CRUCIAL is how you pay off the debt. Make sure you get, in writing, that paying $X amount will fully satisfy the debt and will close the matter as in Pay-To-Delete. If you try to do a settlement, this is very important. Also, the moral brigade will not like my answer, but if you are close to seven years out on your debts, you might as well not pay them since they will fall off of your report after 7 years. If you pay any part of the debt however, it will often reset the clock on those 7 years, so tread carefully.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f87c0172005cce4fdc0e30b72e4f8a1", "text": "If the bank wants to close your account, they will do just that. Having a small ongoing balance isn't going to prompt them to keep it open. Typically, the risk is for a card with zero usage to be closed, as it's a cost to them to keep the account open, and it has no revenue. To avoid this, it's a good idea to use that card or cards for a regular purchase, say, gasoline. A non-impulse buy, and just pay in full to avoid interest. There's no need to keep a balance accruing interest. Keep in mind - A bill contains a month of charges. The bill for December is issued on the 31st, but due January 25th or so. When you pay it in full you do not have zero balance, you have the charges from January. This accomplishes your goal, will no interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de362739cbb538c101bd2ebf4825a915", "text": "tldr; Is the purpose of doing this to ultimately avoid any sort of capital gains paid by someone in your family? Your plan accomplishes this if your dad is single and you are married, but if your dad is married this is probably unnecessary. One side effect of this plan is both you and your dad are unnecessarily giving up a portion of your lifetime gift tax exclusion. Your dad is giving up somewhere between 97-56= $41K of his exclusion (if both you and he are married) and 97-14= $85K (if neither you or your dad is married) and when you give the $430K back you are giving up to that amount minus somewhere between 14-56K. If your dad is married and you were to simply purchase the home from your dad for $430K you would both avoid dipping into your lifetime max, and your dad wouldn't realize any capital gains. If he isn't married, but you are, then your plan works in avoiding any capital gains paid by anyone in your family, unless you end up selling the home in the future for more than $597K. The plan also hinges on:", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8f8931eeb8edde7882438baa17bdae27", "text": "If you can make the trip to BC yourself, I'd recommend opening an account with TD Canada Trust. They allow non-citizens to make accounts — apparently the only Canadian bank to do so. The customer service is great and they have a good online banking site that will allow you to manage it from the US. If you have an account with TD Bank in the US, it's also very easy to set up a TD Canada account through them that will be linked on their online site (though you will still have separate logins for both and manage them separately). I've done the reverse as a Canadian living in the US. You can set it up over the phone; their Cross-Border Banking number is listed here. They also offer better currency conversion rates than their standard ones when you do a cross-border transfer. You could also look into HSBC as well. They operate in Washington as well as across the border in BC. If you can't open a CAD account locally, they can help you open and manage one in Canada from the US. It may or may not require having a small business account instead of a personal account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acf65522e38ac99b0b2b542a88997ce3", "text": "Everbank has offered accounts in foreign currencies for a while. https://www.everbank.com/currencies Takes a while to get it setup; and moving cash in and out is via wire transfer. Also you need to park $5K in USD in a money market account; which you use as a transfer point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcafdefeaacda2f4caddb1682be332c0", "text": "Give Harris Bank a call; they might be able to help you As of August 21, 2015, Harris bank does NOT offer Canadian dollar accounts in the U.S.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad3ff73b40335a18780563464d344851", "text": "Royal Bank in Canada can open an account for you in the US through RBC (the US affiliate to Royal Bank of Canada) I think it's called RBC Access USA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30e4fb242f8e042d3c4cc995bc4986e", "text": "Canada, like other second-rate economies with weak currencies, provides USD accounts. It is not the same vice versa. It is rare to find a direct deposit foreign currency account in the US as it is the world-leading currency.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "dc3bf5cc8311c0baee7aea0804a36a33", "text": "The simple answer is to not close your American bank accounts - or if you have already done so, open one. Make sure it allows for internet banking, and use it to pay all your bills. Periodically move some money from your Canadian account to your US account to cover the bills. I have done this between Canada and the UK for fifteen years now. An alternative is to set up a USD account at your Canadian bank. Most organizations will happily mail your bills abroad, unless the bills are actually associated with an address, like a utility - in which case you should get the person living there to take care of them. Much better is to use electronic billing for everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f335a4554b69a457325a76ed13c1fca6", "text": "\"What is a good bank to use for storing my pay? Preferrably one that has free student accounts. Can I save money from my paychecks directly to a Canadian bank Otherwise, can I connect my bank account to my Canadian account online? Any (almost...) bank in the US has free college checking accounts. If the bank you entered doesn't - exit, and step into the one next door which most likely will. The big names - Wells Fargo, Bank Of America, Chase, Bank of the West, Union Bank, Citi etc - all have it. Also, check your local credit union. Do I need any ID to open a bank account? I have Canadian citizenship and a J-1 visa Bring your passport and a student card/driving license (usually 2 ID's required). What form of money should I take with me? Cash? Should I apply for a debit card? Can I use my Canadian credit card for purchasing anything in the states? (Canadian dollar is stronger than US dollar currently, so this could be to my advantage?) There's some fuss going on about debit cards right now. Some big banks (Bank of America, notably) decided to charge fees for using it. Check it, most of the banks are not charging fees, and as far as I know none of the credit unions are charging. So same thing - if they charge fees for debit card - step out and move on to the next one down the street. Using debit card is pretty convenient, cash is useful for small amount and in places that don't accept cards. If you're asking about how to move money from Canada - check with your local (Canadian) bank about the conversion rates and fees for transfers, check cashing, ATM, card swipes, etc - and see which one is best for you. When I moved large amounts of money across the border, I chose wire transfer because it was the cheapest, but for small amounts many times during the period of your stay it may be more expensive. You can definitely use your Canadian credit/debit card in the States, you'll be charged some fee by your credit card company, and of course the conversion rate. How much tax does I have to pay at the end of my internship? Let's assume one is earning $5,000 per month plus a one time $5,000 housing stipend, all before taxes. Will I be taxed again by the Canadian government? $5K for internship? Wow... You need to talk to a tax specialist, there's probably some treaty between the US and Canada on that, and keep in mind that the State of California taxes your income as well. What are some other tips I can use to save money in the California? California is a very big place. If you live in SF - you'll save a lot by using the MUNI, if your internship is in LA - consider buying an old clunker if you want to go somewhere. If you're in SD - just enjoy the weather, you won't get it in Canada. You'll probably want a \"\"pay as you go\"\" wireless phone plan. If your Canadian phone is unlocked GSM - you can go to any AT&T or T-Mobile store and get a pre-paid SIM for free. Otherwise, get a prepaid phone at any groceries store. It will definitely be cheaper than paying roaming charges to your Canadian provider. You can look at my blog (I'm writing from California), I accumulated a bunch of saving tips there over the years I'm writing it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf3ad180ec76b658c385425a3fb820a0", "text": "Typically, businesses always charge their 'home' currency, so if the shop is in Canada, you will pay Canadian Dollars. Normally you don't have any choices either. Your credit card company will convert it to your currency, using the current international currency exchange rate (pretty good), plus a potential fee between 0 and 5% - depending on your credit card (not so good). If it is a significant amount, or you plan to do that more than once, and if you have multiple credit cards, check first to see which one has the lowest international fee; 0% is not uncommon, but neither is 3 or 4%. If it's a 10$ thingy, it's probably not worth the time; but 4% of 1000 is already 40$... As of right now, the currency exchange rate is 1.33, so you would pay ~75 USD; plus the potential fee, 0$ - 4$. Understand that this exchange rate is floating continuously; it probably won't change much, but it will change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2a52a96bc2cc98117b5ae5ccf55134", "text": "An addition to the other answers more than a real answer I suspect. Note that fees are not the only way that you pay for foreign exchange; where no foreign exchange fee is charged the issuer makes it back by giving an appalling spread on the rate. Be very careful not to go for a card that has no fees but an exorbitant spread. I personally would open a CAD denominated account in Canada and convert a larger amount into that account when CAD is historically weak. The spreads will be better that way but don't attempt to use it to mitigate exchange rate risk or to trade the two currencies for profit as that way madness and penury lie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee44afaaeb77f2fed647ae241e8bd562", "text": "I suggest opening a Credit Card that doesn't charge Foreign currency conversion fees. Here is the list of cards without such a fee, Bankrate's Foreign transaction fee credit card chart", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f0667d528140cd90d58f00737a36f30", "text": "Find a Bank of China branch in the United States. They have them in Canada! This link is to the Bank of China website, along with branch locations. They are in New York and L.A. http://www.boc.cn/en/aboutboc/ab6/200812/t20081216_494260.html And the Bank of China USA website: http://www.bocusa.com/portal There are a number of Bank of China Branches in Canada due to the high numbers of Chinese people. I'm sure a phone call or an email to them will help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcde0f9527d86dec009f5a62cee3b5d7", "text": "It sounds like your looking for something like an offshore bank (e.g. an anonymous Swiss bank account). These don't really exist anymore. I think you should just open a small bank account in your home country (preferably one the reimburses your ATM fees, like Charles Schwab in the US). If it's a small amount of money, the authorities probably won't care and they won't be able to give you large penalties anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7640319b1c12b9083eb1af33680b292", "text": "US currency doesn't expire, it is always legal tender. I can see some trouble if you tried to spend a $10,000 bill (you'd be foolish to do so, since they are worth considerably more). Maybe some stores raise eyebrows at old-style $100's (many stores don't take $100 bills at all), but you could swap them for new style at a bank if having trouble with a particular store. Old-series currency can be an issue when trying to exchange US bills in other countries, just because it doesn't expire here, doesn't mean you can't run into issues elsewhere. Other countries have different policies, for example, over the last year the UK phased in a new five pound note, and as of last month (5/5/2017) the old fiver is no longer considered legal tender (can still swap out old fivers at the bank for now at least). Edit: I mistook which currency you took where, and focused on US currency instead of Canadian, but it looks like it's the same story there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "737584b1df2438d3c2880417457d2498", "text": "Many of the Financial intermediaries in the business, have extraordinary high requirements for opening an account. For example to open an account in Credit Suisse one will need 1 million US dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5900e8422cad37c7a227b98844f458a", "text": "You can apply for Foreign currency accounts. But they aren't saving accounts by any means, but more like current accounts. Taking money out will involve charges. You have to visit the bank website to figure out what all operations can be performed on your account. Barclays and HSBC allow accounts in foreign currency. Other banks also will be providing the same services. Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person Depends on country by country. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Get yourself a trading account and invest in foreign markets i.e. equities, bonds etc. But all in all be ready for the foreign exchange risks involved in denominating assets in multiple currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10aa2b0954ea833c97fd9e0d7f1ffcbb", "text": "Converting fideli comment to answer I don't think any Canadian bank offers this capability for online banking. However, there seems to be a fierce push right now at most banks to improve their online banking platform so they may be open to the suggestion of guest accounts", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b127f0d4b115a2ec9ef41a1046a9b7b", "text": "When traveling you can use any flavor of credit card or exchange usd to local currency. When you move, just switch to a new local credit union. Leaving big banks for a credit union might not personally give you a different experience, but at least you can know you're not supporting scum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551209fba299aa15ed4dd94754ca16ad", "text": "Use prepaid cards. You only have to declare, or mention, or convert CASH. You can get as many $500 prepaid cards as you like and carry them across. US Code only mentions cash, so even if customs thought it was peculiar that you had one thousand prepaid cards in your trunk, it isn't something they look into. Prepaid cards come with small transaction fees though. And of course, you could also use a bank account in America and just withdraw from an ATM in canada. Finally, the FBAR isn't that much of a hassle, in case you did decide to get a canadian bank account. The US Federal Gov't doesn't care about all these crafty things you might do, as long as you are using POST-TAX money. If your foreign account earns interest, then you have some pre-tax money that the US Federal Gov't will care about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c9208c07694f9a4a1ed00ba6c802491", "text": "Actually What you Can do here, Deposit the money to someones account who has an Account in abroad and Linked to Master Card. Or Another option is You can take help from two banks Standard Chartard or HSBC, they provide RFCD Account, which is a Dollar Account and International Cards which you can use in abroad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f8d64a7173e83e85807bda067af93aa", "text": "If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443", "text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dba28ff9b2908da6f4be7d5ec49557e", "text": "Let's take a step back. My fictional company 'A' is a solid, old, established company. It's in consumer staples, so people buy the products in good times and bad. It has a dividend of $1/yr. Only knowing this, you have to decide how much you would be willing to pay for one share. You might decide that $20 is fair. Why? Because that's a 5% return on your money, 1/20 = 5%, and given the current rates, you're happy for a 5% dividend. But this company doesn't give out all its earnings as a dividend. It really earns $1.50, so the P/E you are willing to pay is 20/1.5 or 13.3. Many companies offer no dividend, but of course they still might have earnings, and the P/E is one metric that used to judge whether one wishes to buy a stock. A high P/E implies the buyers think the stock will have future growth, and they are wiling to pay more today to hold it. A low P/E might be a sign the company is solid, but not growing, if such a thing is possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4edced1ac9a8249708dd0ee8f3852303", "text": "While on the surface it might not make sense to pay more than one dollar to get just one dollar back, the key thing is that a good company's earnings are recurring each year. So, you wouldn't just be paying for the $1 dollar of earnings per share this year, but for the entire future stream of earnings per share, every year, in perpetuity -- and the earnings may grow over time too (if it remains a good company.) Your stock is a claim on a portion of the company's future. The brighter and/or more certain that future, the more investors are willing to pay for each recurring dollar of earnings. And the P/E ratio tells you, in effect, how many years it might take for your investment to earn back what you paid – assuming earnings remain the same. But you would hope the earnings would grow, too. When a company's earnings are widely expected to grow, the P/E for the stock is often higher than average. Bear in mind you don't actually receive the company's earnings, since management often decides to reinvest all or a portion of it to grow the company. Yet, many companies do pay a portion of earnings out as dividends. Dividends are money in your pocket each year.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "33e88a0fd8405877ed821efe13bd3a78", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c0ae24ba33f029d528764a03af25505", "text": "Yep, but it you didn't answer my question (edit: I know it was phrased as a question, but I do know youre supposed to model changes in cash). When bankers calculate all three approaches, how do they compare them? From what I see, the conclusion of each approach gives us: * Public Company Approach: Enterprise Value * Transaction Approach: Enterprise Value * Discounted Cash Flow Approach: Enterprise Value + Minimum Level of Operating Cash Does an investment banker subtract out that minimum level of operating cash at the end of the calculation to get to a value that he can then compare?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581", "text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08e3908c35c115650acb1de2f67303e9", "text": "It's safe to say that for mature companies, with profits that have been steady, and steadily growing, that a multiple of earnings can come into play. It's not identical between companies or even industries, but for consumer staples, for instance, you'll see a clustering around a certain P/E. On the other hand, there are companies like FaceBook, 18 months ago, trading at 20, now at 70 with a 110 P/E. Did the guys valuing the stock simply get it wrong then or is it wrong now? Contrast this with KO (Coca-cola) a 20 P/E and 3.2% dividend, PG (Proctor and Gamble) 21 P/E, 3% dividend. Funny though, a $1M valuation for $50K in profit may be Shark ridiculous, but a $1B valuation on a $50M company with great prospects, i.e. a pipeline of new products in growing markets, is a steal. Disclosure I have no positions in the mentioned stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "955455502d9a711735c3029de66b96ca", "text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a6861c5a6ac2146025b8a13d9207d3c", "text": "That's pretty typical for introductory problems. It's leading you into an NPV question. They're keeping the cash flows the same to illustrate the time value of money to show you that even though the free cash flow is the same in year 1 and year 4 or whatever when you discount it to present value today's stream is worth more than tomorrow's", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c9353f6a0cae024f3d16f95ca48999b", "text": "\"Check your math... \"\"two stocks, both with a P/E of 2 trading at $40 per share lets say, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase?\"\" If a stock has P/E of 2 and price of $40 it has an EPS of $20. Not $10. Not $5.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce39b9dfd8d0449374b8c1df3bc0e9d5", "text": "\"For free, 5 years is somewhat available, and 10 years is available to a limited extent on money.msn.com. Some are calculated for you. Gurufocus is also a treasure trove of value statistics that do in fact reach back 10 years. From the Gurufocus site, the historical P/E can be calculated by dividing their figure for \"\"Earnings per Share\"\" by the share price at the time. It looks like their EPS figure is split adjusted, so you'll have to use the split adjusted share price. \"\"Free cash\"\", defined in the comments as money held at the end of the year, can be found on the balance sheet as \"\"Cash, Cash Equivalents, Marketable Securities\"\"; however, the more common term is \"\"free cash flow\"\", and its growth rate can be found at the top of the gurufocus financials page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8121c431651f7b2b2fdc9de6f5f909e", "text": "Try to find the P/E ratio of the Company and then Multiply it with last E.P.S, this calculation gives the Fundamental Value of the share, anything higher than this Value is not acceptable and Vice versa.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b92089939e283a69c66535a345f7ecee", "text": "Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there? Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset? The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc38b60a0e383d11c098c69517619c7f", "text": "In the equity markets, the P/E is usually somewhere around 15. The P/E can be viewed as the inverse of the rate of a perpetuity. Since the average is 15, and the E/P of that would be 6.7%, r should be 6.7% on average. If your business is growing, the growth rate can be incorporated like so: As you can see, a high g would make the price negative, in essence the seller should actually pay someone to take the business, but in reality, r is determined from the p and an estimated g. For a business of any growth rate, it's best to compare the multiple to the market, so for the average business in the market with your business's growth rate and industry, that P/E would be best applied to your company's income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81995de733ba6e149014bbf4128058a4", "text": "\"P/E alone would not work very well. See for example http://www.hussmanfunds.com/html/peak2pk.htm and http://www.hussmanfunds.com/rsi/profitmargins.htm (in short, P/E is affected too much by cyclical changes in profit margins, or you might say: booms inflate the E beyond sustainable levels, thus making the P/E look more favorable than it is). Here's a random blog post that points to Schiller's normalized earnings measure: http://seekingalpha.com/article/247257-s-p-500-is-expensive-using-normalized-earnings I think even Price to Sales is supposed to work better than P/E for predicting 10-year returns on a broad index, because it effectively normalizes the margins. (Normalized valuation explains the variance in 10-year returns better than the variance in 1-year returns, I think I've read; you can't rely on things \"\"reverting to mean\"\" in only 1 year.) Another issue with P/E is that E is more subject to weird accounting effects than for example revenues. For example whether stock compensation is expensed or one-time write-offs are included or whatever can mean you end up with an economically strange earnings number. btw, a simple way to do what you describe here would be to put a chunk of money into funds that vary equity exposure. For example John Hussman's fund has an elaborate model that he uses to decide when to hedge. Say you invest 40% bonds, 40% stocks, and 20% in Hussman Strategic Growth. When Hussman fully hedges his fund, you would effectively have 40% in stocks; and when he fully unhedges it, you would have 60% in stocks. This isn't quite the whole story; he also tries to pick up some gains through stock picking, so when fully hedged the fund isn't quite equivalent to cash, more like a market-neutral fund. (For Hussman Funds in particular, he's considered stocks to be overvalued for most of the last 15 years, and the fund is almost always fully hedged, so you'd want to be comfortable with that.) There are other funds out there doing similar stuff. There are certainly funds that vary equity exposure though most not as dramatically as the Hussman fund. Some possibilities might be PIMCO All-Asset All-Authority, PIMCO Multi-Asset, perhaps. Or just some value-oriented funds with willingness to deviate from benchmarks. Definitely read the prospectus on all these and research other options, I just thought it would be helpful to mention a couple of specific examples. If you wanted to stick to managing ETFs yourself, Morningstar's premium service has an interesting feature where they take the by-hand bottom-up analysis of all the stocks in an ETF, and use that to calculate an over- or under-valuation ratio for the ETF. I don't know if the Morningstar bottom-up stuff necessarily works; I'm sure they make the \"\"pro\"\" case on their site. On the \"\"con\"\" side, in the financial crisis bubble bursting, they cut their valuation on many companies and they had a high valuation on a lot of the financials that blew up. While I haven't run any stats and don't have the data, in several specific cases it looked like their bottom-up analysis ended up assuming too-high profit margins would continue. Broad-brush normalized valuation measures avoided that mistake by ignoring the details of all the individual companies and assuming the whole index had to revert to mean. If you're rich, I think you can hire GMO to do a varied-equity-exposure strategy for you (http://www.gmo.com/America/). You could also look at the \"\"fundamental indexing\"\" ETFs that weight by dividends or P/E or other measures of value, rather than by market cap. The bottom line is, there are lots of ways to do tactical asset allocation. It seems complex enough that I'm not sure it's something you'd want to manage yourself. There are also a lot of managers doing this that I personally am not comfortable with because they don't seem to have a discipline or method that they explain well enough, or they don't seem to do enough backtesting and math, or they rely on macroeconomic forecasts that probably aren't reliable, or whatever. All of these tactical allocation strategies are flavors of active management. I'm most comfortable with active management when it has a fairly objective, testable, and logical discipline to it, such as Graham&Buffett style value investing, Hussman's statistical methods, or whatever it is. Many people will argue that all active management is bad and there's no way to distinguish among any of it. I am not in that camp, but I do think a lot of active managers are bad, and that it's pretty hard to distinguish among them, and I think active management is more likely to help with risk control than it is to help with beating the market. Still you should know (and probably already do know, but I'll note for other readers) that there's a strong argument smart people make that you're best off avoiding this whole line of tactical-allocation thinking and just sticking to the pure cap-based index funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a3567483f191bfc140d85f2fd939ab9", "text": "The PE ratio stands for the Price-Earnings ratio. The price-earnings ratio is a straightforward formula: Share Price divided by earnings per share. Earnings per share is calculated by dividing the pre-tax profit for the company by the number of shares in issue. The PE ratio is seen by some as a measure of future growth of a company. As a general rule, the higher the PE, the faster the market believes a company will grow. This question is answered on our DividendMax website: http://www.dividendmax.co.uk/help/investor-glossary/what-is-the-pe-ratio Cheers", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001e570c3a2a33bd32b83c3442ff2427", "text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a720487b2ba826b237a83dc0981618", "text": "I would suggest at least getting a personal card that you only use for business expenses, even if you don't opt for a business card. It makes it very clear that expenses on that card are business expenses, and is just more professional. The same goes for a checking account, if you have one of those. It makes it easier to defend if you are ever audited, and if you use an accountant or tax preparer.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d72f65a044b71a3bd6360019255b8039", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfdc52a2cfc44ce0064278373b4b6621", "text": "\"If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk. FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor. It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See \"\"What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?\"\" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaf385e8e4cec04116c0701d991180b7", "text": "I think your approach of looking exclusively at USD deposits is a prudent one. Here are my responses to your questions. 1) It is highly unlikely that a USD deposit abroad be converted to local currency upon withdrawal. The reason for offering a deposit in a particular currency in the first place is that the bank wants to attract funds in this currency. 2) Interest rate is a function of various risks mostly supply and demand, central bank policy, perceived risk etc. In recent years low-interest rate policy as led by U.S., European and Japanese central banks has led particularly low yields in certain countries disregarding their level of risk, which can vary substantially (thus e.g. Eastern Europe has very low yields at the moment in spite of its perceived higher risk). Some countries offer depository insurance. 3) I would focus on banks which are among the largest in the country and boast good corporate governance i.e. their ownership is clean and transparent and they are true to their business purpose. Thus, ownership is key, then come financials. Country depository insurance, low external threat (low war risk) is also important. Most banks require a personal visit in order to open the account, thus I wouldn't split much further than 2-3 banks, assuming these are good quality.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1fbf857901037be395e69f69dff8648e", "text": "Bond laddering is usually a good idea, but with interest rates so low, a properly laddered portfolio is going to have a higher duration that you should be willing to accept right now. CD laddering seems like a silly idea. Just keep whatever amount you're going to need in a Money Market account and invest the rest according to your risk tolerance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a76276245be23f904dc51d7b091f2012", "text": "If you're exchanging cash, then the rule of thumb is generally that it's better to buy currency in the country that issues the currency. In your case that would mean buy INR in India and buy USD in the U.S. The rationale is that supply of foreign currency is generally smaller, so you get a little better price if you're holding the foreign currency. There are, of course, exceptions, like if you're going to a country with little foreign trade. (That wouldn't seem to apply to the U.S. or India.) If you are doing an electronic transfer through a bank, however, I doubt that it matters which end initiates the transfer. You're going to get their wholesale exchange rate plus fees. It seems more likely to matter what fees are charged, and that may vary more by bank than by country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7579afbd4c865d46d443a4bec45661a", "text": "While I don't disagree with the other answers as far as CD laddering goes (at least in principle), three months CDs are currently getting much lower rates than money market accounts, at least according to http://www.bankrate.com. A savings account is also more liquid than CDs. Bonds are another option, and they can generally be liquidated quickly on the secondary market. However, they can go down in value if interest rates rise (actually this is true of CDs as well--there is a secondary market, though I believe only for brokerage CDs?). Bottom line, A high yield savings account is likely your best best. As others noted, you should think of your emergency fund as savings, not investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd32495b2fc65a7b03e82757110cf866", "text": "\"The CBOE states, in an investor's guide to Interest Rate Options: The Options’ Underlying Values Underlying values for the option contracts are 10 times the underlying Treasury yields (rates)— 13-week T-bill yield (for IRX), 5-year T-note yield (for FVX), 10-year T-note yield (for TNX) and 30-year T-bond yield (for TYX). The Yahoo! rate listed is the actual Treasury yield; the Google Finance and CBOE rates reflect the 10 times value. I don't think there's a specific advantage to \"\"being contrary\"\", more likely it's a mistake, or just different.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b454bdd66734e04e3cd3b92bb4779f8f", "text": "I'm an Australian who just got back from a trip to Malaysia for two weeks over the New Year, so this feels a bit like dejavu! I set up a 28 Degrees credit card (my first ever!) because of their low exchange rate and lack of fees on credit card transactions. People say it's the best card for travel and I was ready for it. However, since Malaysia is largely a cash economy (especially in the non-city areas), I found myself mostly just withdrawing money from my credit card and thus getting hit with a cash advance fee ($4) and instant application of the high interest rate (22%) on the money. Since I was there already and had no other alternatives, I made five withdrawals over the two weeks and ended up paying about $21 in fees. Not great! But last time I travelled I had a Commonwealth Bank Travel Money Card (not a great idea), and if I'd used that instead on this trip and given up fees for a higher exchange rate, I would have been charged an extra $60! Presumably my Commonwealth debit card would have been the same. This isn't even including mandatory ATM fees. If I've learned anything from this experience and these envelope calculations I'm doing now, it's these:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e732648b31005f1d4e21e034a068d67", "text": "There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6657c05898ceb7473983e062b054aa66", "text": "\"Thanks! Do you know how to calculate the coefficients from this part?: \"\"The difference between the one-year rate and the spread coefficients represents the response to a change in the one-year rate. As a result, the coefficient on the one-year rate and the difference in the coefficients on the one-year rate and spread should be positive if community banks, on average, are asset sensitive and negative if they are liability sensitive. The coefficient on the spread should be positive because an increase in long-term rates should increase net interest income for both asset-sensitive and liability-sensitive banks.\"\" The one-year treasury yield is 1.38% and the ten-year rate is 2.30%. I would greatly appreciate it if you have the time!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4b32ca9426daa77485dce6bc0707b11", "text": "\"This answer is to supplement the answers about what CD laddering is and what its benefits are. I'm going to talk about its risks. CD ladders are subject to risk. They are not subject to very much credit risk and investment risk (they're federally insured! Barring the dissolution of the United States government as we know it, you will get all your money back!). However, they are subject to inflation risk and a little bit of interest rate risk. A CD is basically a promise for a certain amount of money after a certain amount of time. Inflation risk happens when there's inflation and the money that you've been promised isn't worth as much anymore, because everything's gotten more expensive. Interest rate risk happens when you buy a CD in a very low interest rate environment (like, oh, the year 2010) and rates subsequently rise. You might have been somewhat better off waiting for rates to rise before buying the CD. (Also, if you were to try and re-sell it, you would get an inferior price - enough to make up for the interest rate difference.) Note that interest rates tend to rise if there is a significant amount of inflation, so these two risks go together. Interest rate risk and inflation risk are higher for longer-term CDs (at least right now) because there's more opportunity for inflation and interest rates to rise. 2010 has been marked by the extraordinarily low interest rate environment which prevails, and the Federal Reserve has announced that it is trying to bring about a higher rate of inflation (you may have heard something about a \"\"second round of quantitative easing\"\"). A quick look at interest rates show that 2-5 year CDs yield about 1.50% these days. You could, alternatively, get a savings account that yields 1.4%, preserves your liquidity, and will raise the rate it pays you on savings in the event that inflation and interest rates rise (or, if they don't raise it, you can move the account, unlike a CD). In summary, as of right now (October 2010), fixed-income investments like CDs don't pay you very much and have elevated levels of risk, especially for long-term investment. This is one of the worst times possible to invest in a CD ladder.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531", "text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d67d3a9f9940d33d75c8fbfa7f854d74", "text": "The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6377a885c06e5395f8e7427c1276d4c4", "text": "In my experience, the only penalty to breaking a CD is to lose a certain amount of accumulated interest. Your principal investment will be fine. Close the CD. A few days of interest is nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc7da4757af24dec88d9ce670f8e286", "text": "\"The consumer who opens a CD may receive a passbook or paper certificate, it now is common for a CD to consist simply of a book entry and an item shown in the consumer's periodic bank statements; that is, there is usually no \"\"certificate\"\" as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certificate_of_deposit Generally speaking, CDs should offer higher interest that typically doesn't vary, over the term of that CD. So, in that way it offers a bit more security on the return. But, they also lock up your money for a specific period of time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33aeca2f8fe93734e2b66afc5a51e50f", "text": "\"The difference it makes is in the magnitude of risk difference people will need in order to overcome the amount they're paying to keep their money \"\"safe\"\". For example, if someone charged me $100 to keep $10,000 of my money \"\"safe\"\", such that I felt very very confident in getting $9,900 back at the end of a year, I might go for that if the only alternatives are to move it somewhere where there's a good chance I get less than $9,900 back at the end of a year. In short, I might feel I lose less by paying that -1% interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "431b83a1975ad5657bd69af27d9d4f63", "text": "I have mine at Ally also. I've been transitioning about 75% of it in to a ladder of 18x 18 month CDs rather than leaving it in the regular savings. The early withdrawal penalty is so low, at just a portion of accrued interest, that the funds are essentially liquid. It was the safest way I could find an additional 0.25%. Additionally, Ally gives a rate bump when you renew a CD. The bump is currently 0.05% but it's been as high as 0.25%. When I was building the ladder I started by buying 6, 9, 12, 18 month CDs every month, so the shorter duration CDs would generate the renewal bump on renewal.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ba6929a4a4e8abb0a27ea589b2c2fd20", "text": "If this is because he wants to avoid paying taxes, will I get in trouble if I agree to have him work on my vehicle? You should check your state and local sales tax laws to be certain, but in my state you have no liability if he does not pay his taxes. That's his problem, not yours. The biggest risk for you is if something goes wrong, you have no proof that the work was ever done, so it's possible he could deny that any transaction ever took place and refuse to correct it or refund your money. So at worst you're out what you paid for the service, plus what it would cost you to fix it if you needed to and chose to do so. If you don't want to take that risk, then insist on a receipt or take you business elsewhere, but there's no criminal liability for you if he chooses not to report the income. EDIT Be aware, though that state tax is levied at the state and local level, so the laws of your individual state or city may be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5a20213ef2a45525c281308950c5cd4", "text": "\"There are number of reasons why someone doesn't want to give you a receipt for cash payment. Anything ranging from not wanting to pay taxes, to being able to deny you gave them money for service in the event you're not happy with the service and ask for money back. You won't get in trouble for giving him cash, however you should be worried because any \"\"reputable\"\" person providing any type of service/product will provide a receipt regardless of payment type.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8032436147cca40ec80e4ea03d6c9961", "text": "In some states, it is your responsibility to pay the sales tax on a transaction, even if the party your purchase from doesn't collect it. This is common with online purchases across state lines; for example, here in Massachusetts, if I buy something from New Hampshire (where there is no sales tax), I am required to pay MA sales tax on the purchase when I file my income taxes. Buying a service that did not include taxes just shifts the burden of paperwork from the other party to me. Even if you would end up saving money by paying in cash, as other here have pointed out, you are sacrificing a degree of protection if something goes wrong with the transaction. He could take your money and walk away without doing the work, or do a sloppy job, or even damage your vehicle. Without a receipt, it is your word against his that the transaction ever even took place. Should you be worried that he is offering a discount for an under the table transaction? Probably not, as long as you don't take him up on it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9d1a7f1944348ed00e9367a5fcb54ad7", "text": "\"Well, I'd probably need to buy a lot more [Tide](http://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1) to hide any purchases I don't want Uncle Sam to know about (not just drugs, either - When's the last time you paid sales tax at a yard sale?). Other than that, I doubt it would matter much. 99.9% of my financial transactions are *already* on plastic, and I regularly keep the same \"\"emergency $20 bill\"\" in my wallet for months at a time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31748a9d3c9acbd7ecd84088aa552479", "text": "You should check directly with the seller. I suspect you will find they have not recieved any money. Paypal tend to hang on to money as long as possible in all transactions, and will do anything to avoid giving out cash before it has come in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ad08fc0ab8ad1ece6c26bf0a5529da4", "text": "When you're selling something through a provider, like Craig's List or newspapers, the only thing that may limit your choices is the provider. They may refuse your post if it's against their rules or the law. But luckily they usually don't limit or enforce certain payment choices. These private business providers have the right to do so if they want. You don't need to be their customer. They may state their terms for using the service and even refuse service (before any payment is made). The fun part is that you may do so as well. Just remember to state your terms in your post so the prospective buyers are aware of them. I've found it best to put payment and delivery terms in separate lines so that they are easily noticeable, for example: Nice victorian handbasket with gold embroidery, only used once. Signed by the original author. Comes with a certificate of authenticity. No delivery, only cash payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b363cdad4a083eaa1df0cc545c2294", "text": "While in London for a month about a year ago, I had similar issues. I ended up getting a prepaid chip-and-pin card that was filled with cash. I don't remember the retailer that sold me this, but I figure it'll give you something to start your search.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d256f5131dfbb00d5117bc0e6e9af62", "text": "You don't need to keep receipts for most things, and if you are not going to itemize your deductions (which as a college student, you probably won't), you need even fewer. Things that you should always keep: If you are itemizing your deductions, you want to keep receipts for anything that you can itemize. Some common things are: Another thing that you should do, but few people do, is keep track of your online purchases, since many states require you to pay sales tax on those purchases. Of course, the state has no way of knowing what you buy online, so it is all done on the honor system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c01a70db78b356422e72671b7b7ed0da", "text": "If it is more convenient for you - sure, go ahead and create another account. Generally, when you give someone a check - the money is no longer yours. So according to the constructive receipt doctrine, you've paid, whether the check was cashed or not. The QB is reflecting the correct matter of things. It doesn't matter that you're cash-based, the money still laying on your account because you gave someone a check that hasn't been cashed - is not your money and shouldn't be reflected in your books as such.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "123c5d8da7e052d5b03841cd5706169a", "text": "Cash-back also lets the store turn hard currency into an electronic transfer or check, which reduces the hassle/risk of hauling bagfulls of cash to the bank. (The smaller stores I've spoken to have called this out as a major advantage of plastic over either cash or checks. I'm assuming that the problem scales with number and size of transactions.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e399cca341c7328876cd896e39d0d1e", "text": "As a programmer*, I expect the ATM and counter receipts to have an error and look hard for it. If I don't find the error I usually cram it in my pocket which is the same as throwing it away. I should keep them, but I also look at my online balances for almost all of my accounts several times a week so I (perhaps foolishly) don't worry about paper receipts too much. *Maybe I should be a tester.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4611b10dcda9bdcf2a448ddfd061e57b", "text": "http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/buying-house-with-cash/ It looks like you can, but it's a bad idea because you lack protection of a receipt, there's no record of you actually giving the money over, and the money would need to be counted - bill by bill - which increases time and likelihood of error. In general, paying large amounts in cash won't bring up any scrutiny because there's no record. How can the IRS scrutinize something that it can't know about? Of course, if you withdraw 200k from your bank account, or deposit 200k into it then the government would know and it would certainly be flagged as suspicious.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "942baf51fcf62d3525a9be83b3b3c352", "text": "Slightly off topic... Not merchandise, but I paid for various doctor's appointments with cash (as opposed to paying with health insurance). I'd call ahead of time and notify them that I'd be paying in cash. I got ridiculous discounts, sometimes even less than the copay. I do not know why this discrepancy exists and I didn't want to ask for fear of messing up a good thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bea8214d4bc9904c80e2cba5c8277aee", "text": "Not by you. Your bank might have to fill some reports for the IRS, but for the customer, nothing needs to be done. As long as the money is not income from illegal activity you don't need to worry about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a604457a8b2691dc2a260e9b318da026", "text": "\"In general, a lack of endorsement (meaning nothing written by the receiver on the back of the check) is equivalent to it being endorsed \"\"as deposit only\"\" to a bank that the depositor has an account with. (See Uniform Commercial Code §4-205.) That is, the bank that receives a deposit without any endorsement promises to the banks that process the check along the line all the way back to your bank, that they properly deposited the money into the account of the entity that the check was made out to. With checks being processed with more and more automation, it's getting fairly common for there to be little writing needed on the check itself, as the digital copy gets submitted to the banking system for clearing. If you're concerned about there being some sort of fraud, that perhaps the entity that you're sending money to isn't the ones that should be getting it, or that they're not actually getting the money, or something like that, that's really an entirely different concern. I would expect that if you were saying that you paid something, and the payee said that you hadn't, that you would dispute the transaction with your bank. They should be able to follow the electronic trail to where the money went, but I suspect they only do so as part of an investigation (and possibly only in an investigation that involved law enforcement of some type). If you're just curious about what bank account number your deposit went into, then it just looks like you're the one trying to commit some sort of fraud (even if you're just being curious), and they don't have much incentive to try to help you out there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3eae8565bbfc9e4a70a77b947e42ef", "text": "You would be required to report it as self-employment income and pay tax accordingly. It's up to you to keep proper records (like a receipt book, for example), especially when it comes to cash. If you can't prove exactly how much you earned and the government decides to guess the amount for you then you won't like the outcome!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2acf99226ed0dfb29bdfd1c8bfa6d16", "text": "\"In the US, Section 3.114 of the Uniform Commercial Code sets the rules for how any confusion in checks or other business transactions is handled: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” If there was any ambiguity in the way you wrote out the amount, the institution will compare the two fields (the written words and the courtesy box (digits)) to see if the ambiguity can be resolved. The reality is that the busy tellers and ATM operators typically are going to look at the numeric digits first. So even if they happen to notice the traditional \"\"and...\"\" missing, it seems highly unlikely that such an omission would cause enough ambiguity between these the two fields to reject the payment. Common sense dictates here. I wouldn't worry about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f145e18c71d331beb4701f0837b4e393", "text": "\"There are some tools that might help you. For example, I have an \"\"Expense It\"\" application on my iPhone, where I can type in a purchase while still at the cashier, the idea is to track expenses on a trip, but the implementation will suit your needs perfectly. Keeping slips is a way to go too, but I personally don't like that because I'm a messy person and after a couple of days all the receipts are gone. If you can keep track of tons of slips - you can just do that.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2c5147bfa6a3aafee6dce338a7345b10", "text": "How would you respond to these cases: Limited card options - If someone has a bad credit record the cards available may only be those with an annual fee. Not everyone will have your credit record and thus access to the cards you have. Some annual fees may be waived in some cases - Thus, someone may have a card with a fee that could be waived if enough transactions are done on the card. Thus, if someone gives enough business to the credit card company, they will waive the fee. On the point of the rewards, if the card is from a specific retailer, there could be a 10% discount for using that card and if the person purchases more than a couple thousand dollars' worth from that store this is a savings of $200 from the retail prices compared to what would happen in other cases that more than offsets the annual fee. If someone likes to be a handyman and visits Home Depot often there may be programs to give rewards in this case. Credit cards can be useful for doing on-line purchases, flight reservations, rental cars and a few other purchases that to with cash or debit can be difficult if not close to impossible. Some airline cards have a fee, but presumably the perks provide a benefit that outweigh that fee over the year. I'm thinking of the Citibank cards tied to American Airlines, first year free, then an $85 fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22259b6d72da91a9fe3224dbeb616a0b", "text": "Just to make this a little less vauge, I will base everything on the Mercedes Benz American Express (MB AMEX) card, which is the closest to a $100 annual fee I found on American Express's website. The benefits of a card with an annual fee generally are worth the cost if (and only if) you spend enough money on the card, and avoid paying interest to offset the benefit. Using the MB AMEX card as a reference, it offers 5X points for Mercedes Benz purchases, 3X points at gas stations, 2X points at restaurants, and 1X points everywhere else. Even if we only make purchases at the 1X rate, it only takes charging $10,000 to the card in a year in order to make up the difference. Not too hard to do on a card someone uses as their main method of payment. Every dollar spent at the higher rates only makes that easier. There are a number of other benefits as well. After spending $5,000 on the card in a year, you receive a $500 gift card towards the purchase of a Mercedes Benz car. For anyone on the market for a Mercedes Benz, the card pays for itself multiple times with just this benefit.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "980123d8da7cef03e7dd8c49a9b7197d", "text": "My experience is in the United States only. In the past, American Express marketed its products as more exclusive and prestigious than other cards. There was an attempt to give the impression that cardholders were more qualified financially. In return, fees were higher both to merchants and to cardholders. At the time (early 1990's), it was not common to use credit cards for small purchases, such as groceries or fast food. Credit cards were used for larger purchases such as jewelry or electronics or dinner in a nicer restaurant. Once it became popular to use credit cards for everyday purchases, the demand for customers using credit cards changed to the highest number of people instead of people of higher status. At that point, Visa (and to a lesser extent Mastercard) transaction volume increased dramatically. Merchants needed the largest number of customers with cards, not the most financially stable. As Visa volume grew, and people started using Visa for small purchases, the use of American Express decreased as their habits changed (once someone got used to pulling out Visa, they did it in every situation). Merchants are less willing to go through the extra hassle of accepting cards that are used by fewer people. Over time, I suspect this process led to the gap between Visa and American Express. As a merchant, in order to accept credit cards, you have to set up a bank account and maintain a merchant account. Accepting Visa, MC and Discover can all be done through one account, but American Express has traditionally required a separate relationship, as well as its own set of rules and fees that were generally higher. Since there are relatively few American Express cardholders compared to Visa, there is doubt about whether it is worth it accept the card. It depends upon the customer base. Fine restaurants still generally accept American Express.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50b54ee0f2d50fba4547d1c2c497b452", "text": "A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d29207bab15c1a4dd87966e319f5296a", "text": "Possibly not relevant to the original asker, but in the UK another advantage of using a credit card is that when making a purchase over £100 and paying by credit card you get additional protection on the purchase which you wouldn't get when paying by debit card. E.g. if you buy something costing £100 and the company goes bust before it's delivered, you can claim the money back from the credit card company. Whereas if you paid by debit card, you would potentially lose out. This protection is a legal requirement under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7f7965817f9d5ab9f5b01d3e16284d6", "text": "\"Aside from an annual fee, if any, the card issuer makes money 2 ways, the transaction fee, about 1.5%-2% charged to the merchant, and interest from you if you leave a balance month to month. Obviously, the bank has some cost in processing statements and maintaining your account. If up front you are saying you will not have any chance of providing a certain profit level, they may have no interest in your business. (As you updated.) Other card issuers (almost surely with fees) might. Put the cards on ice. A bag of water in freezer. Don't be so hasty that you ding your report this way. By trashing the history as well as utilization, you may impact your score enough to do some harm if you actually need credit in the near future. I know this is a game with the credit agencies, a \"\"how good a borrower am I\"\" game, but it can really impact your bottom line if you don't play along. In reply to Michael's comment 1/5/15, if I have one card and am budgeted for $1000/mo in spending, in order to keep utilization down to less than 20%, I'd need a line of more than $5000. Even if I ignore utilization, my January spending is $1000, but the bill is cut on the 31st and not due till Feb 25th. So a line of nearly $2000 is required unless you wish to make mid cycle payments on an ongoing basis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56e3871e37ab13e6f1243588f2f7f8be", "text": "Back when they started, Discover undercut Visa and Amex fees by about a point. This was also true when I worked for a mail-order computer retailer in the '90s: if a customer asked us which credit cards we took, we were told to list Discover first (and AmEx last) because Discover had the lowest merchant charges. Possibly this is no longer true today, but for quite a while it was a significant selling point of the Discover card to merchants, and a reason why many did sign on. (A reason some stores did not sign on was that Discover was owned by Sears, and many businesses that competed with Sears didn't like the idea of sending any of their profits to the competition.) Today, Discover also owns Diners Club and the fees for those cards are higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed92a26567b09642092447d525ece178", "text": "Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4837617bdf0a9de560e77cea4a5805b7", "text": "\"Along with the commercials for \"\"frog\"\" protection from Discover, most credit card issuers provide fraud protection and zero liability for any unauthorized purchases. As was mentioned in one of the comments, many issuers also will allow temporary \"\"virtual cards\"\" that can be used in places that may not appear to be as reputable. Depending on the type of pre-paid card you are using, you're likely paying some form of a fee for it, and you're certainly not taking advantage of the benefits that a credit card can provide, cash back being a big one. There are no annual fee cards out there that get 2% cash back on every purchase.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff658878eb559cffbb618b78cfe1ff60", "text": "http://www.andrewsfcu.org/ is one of the only US financial institutions to issue a low or no annual fee chip and pin visa or mastercard.. Andrews is primarily for civilian employees of the Andrews Air Force Base but is available to members of the American Consumer Council, which offers free membership, see http://www.andrewsfcu.org/page.php?page=330 . The chip and pin card is a visa with $0 annual fee and charges a 1% foreign transaction fee. Getting one is modestly difficult because you have to first join the credit union then apply for the card, then go through underwriting as if it were a personal loan rather than a revolving credit account. Still, for travelers, it is probably worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90db26b89e8f2d04c74b31b6bfdaecf1", "text": "\"When you buy something with your credit card, the store pays a fee to the credit card company, typically a base fee of 15 to 50 cents plus 2 to 3% of the purchase. At least, that's what it was a few years back when I had a tiny business and I wanted to accept credit cards. Big chain stores pay less because they are \"\"buying in bulk\"\" and have negotiating power. Just because you aren't paying interest doesn't mean the credit card company isn't making money off of you. In fact if you pay your monthly bill promptly, they're probably making MORE off of you, because they're collecting 2 or 3% for a month or less, instead of the 1 to 2% per month that they can charge in interest. The only situation I know where you can get money from a credit card company for free is when they offer \"\"convenience checks\"\" or a balance transfer with no up-front fee. I get such an offer every now and then. I presume the credit card company does that for the same reason that stores give out free samples: they hope that if you try the card, you'll continue using it. To them, it's a marketing cost, no different than the cost of putting an ad on television.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3989fde6b80584738b3cc00351aa6b8", "text": "A search quickly led to http://www.cardfellow.com/blog/debit-card-credit-card-difference-charges/ which shows the difference in merchant fees charged. A $200 charge costs $3.50-$3.60, a debit charge, $2.34-$2.39 but a PIN Debit, $1.87. The debit cards are a full percent less cost to the merchant, so the money collected is less to use for rewards. (I can't help but wonder how my card gives me 2% cash back, no fee, when I never pay interest.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e93cbdabff605d2c1fe070739704a26", "text": "I have an American Airlines VISA with miles that has no annual fee, but only because I request that they waive the fee each year. Word to the wise - they've never refused.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59a3f24d123cb5f9a11d580a6fdf9747", "text": "Many banks will waive the fee if you have a certain minimum balance, use direct deposit, or something similar. That said, some banks and credit unions have no monthly fees under any circumstances. Big banks only get away with terrible service and fees because most people don't shop around for banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f05c59befb3907f059b801dc96e45b", "text": "I'm surprised by all the pro-credit answers here, debit has some definite advantages. Most importantly, when you pay with a credit card, the merchant pays around 3% of the transaction to the credit company. In many states, they are forced to charge you the same amount, and this is frequently toted as ''consumer protection''. But consider what this means for the business: they loose money for every credit transaction, and they're legally forbidden to do anything about it. So you're taking 3% from a business and handing it over to a massive cooperation. To make matters worse, the buisness is inevitably going to have to raise their prices (albiet by a small amount), so in the end the average consumer has gained nothing. On the other hand, the credit card company wins big, and they use their profits to pay lobbyists and lawyers to keep these rules in place. To put in the worst possible light, it's essentially legal extortion, verging on corruption. As for the fraud protection offered, while it may be true that credit cards will offer a more hassle-free reimbursement (i.e. you just don't have to pay the bill) if your card is stolen, consumer protection laws also extend to debit: in many cases your bank is legally required to cut you a check for all the money you lost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c2fadd0a3d14a203908b8eeb433eb2c", "text": "My view is from the Netherlands, a EU country. Con: Credit cards are more risky. If someone finds your card, they can use it for online purchases without knowing any PIN, just by entering the card number, expiration date, and security code on the back. Worse, sometimes that information is stored in databases, and those get stolen by hackers! Also, you can have agreed to do periodic payments on some website and forgot about them, stopped using the service, and be surprised about the charge later. Debit cards usually need some kind of device that requires your PIN to do online payments (the ones I have in the Netherlands do, anyway), and automated periodic payments are authorized at your bank where you can get an overview of the currently active ones. Con: Banks get a percentage of each credit card payment. Unlike debit cards where companies usually pay a tiny fixed fee for each transaction (of, say, half a cent), credit card payments usually cost them a percentage and it comes to much more, a significant part of the profit margin. I feel this is just wrong. Con: automatic monthly payment can come at an unexpected moment With debit cards, the amount is withdrawn immediately and if the money isn't there, you get an error message allowing you to pay some other way (credit card after all, other bank account, cash, etc). When a recent monthly payment from my credit card was due to be charged from my bank account recently, someone else had been paid from it earlier that day and the money wasn't there. So I had to pay interest, on something I bought weeks ago... Pro: Credit cards apparently have some kind of insurance. I've never used this and don't know how it works, but apparently you can get your money back easily after fraudulent charges. Pro: Credit cards can be more easily used internationally for online purchases I don't know how it is with Visa or MC-issued debit cards, but many US sites accept only cards that have number/expiration date/security code and thus my normal bank account debit card isn't useable. Conclusion: definitely have one, but only use it when absolutely necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33017be05955f80f7df293a5ded9155c", "text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6b26c6ae27d69eeeec92b4c8b16ce259", "text": "Yes the company can still pay dividends even if they aren't making a profit. 1) If the firm has been around, it might have made profits in the past years, which it might be still carrying (check for retained earnings in the financial statements). 2) Some firms in the past have had taken up debt to return the money to shareholders as dividends. 3) It might sell a part of it's assets and return the gain as dividends. 4) They might be bought by some other firm, which returns cash to shareholders to keep them happy. It pays to keep an eye on the financial statements of the company to check how much liquid money they might be carrying around to pay shareholders as dividends. They can stop paying dividends whenever they want. Apple didn't pay a dividend while Steve Jobs was around, even though they were making billions in profits. Many companies don't pay dividends because they find it more beneficial to continue investing in their business rather than returning money to shareholders.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2f950e48b5b647f608e84a5e1e387e60", "text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "354b30beb9a55fa25cc1a12b002fd1ca", "text": "This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a60299283d4304455f80044b59c59161", "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", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0a0740c1b6d3078decfcc0ed1551c3a", "text": "No, just as the profits from the bank do not go to their personal accounts and instead go to the banks coffers, where they are paid out as a dividend. If your company makes a mistake and loses money, do they draw it from your account?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "743d2e65a512c9a50e965e0a1b4a80f0", "text": "\"Dividends telegraph that management has a longer term focus than just the end of quarter share price. There is a committment to at least maintain (if not periodically increase) the dividend payout year over year. Management understands that cutting or pausing dividends will cause dividend investors in market to dump shares driving down the stock price. Dividends can have preferential tax treatment in some jurisdictions, either for an individual compared to capital gains or compared to the corporation paying taxes themselves. For example, REITs (real estate investment trusts) are a type of corporation that in order to not pay corporate income tax are required to pay out 95% of income as dividends each year. These are not the only type, MLP (master limited partnerships) and other \"\"Partnership\"\" structures will always have high dividend rates by design. Dividends provide cash flow and trade market volatility for actual cash. Not every investor needs cash flow, but for certain investors, it reduces the risks of a liquidity crisis, such as in retirement. The alternative for an investor who seeks to use the sale of shares would be to maintain a sufficient cash reserve for typical market recessions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0b832c419be0fca81b784603de9143", "text": "Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7dd76f29cf8950aa0e1eeaa822ed576", "text": "Yes, absolutely. Consider Microsoft, Updated Jan. 17, 2003 11:59 p.m. ET Software giant Microsoft Corp., finally bowing to mounting pressure to return some of its huge cash hoard to investors, said it will begin paying a regular annual dividend to shareholders. From Wall Street Journal. Thus, for the years prior to 2003, the company didn't pay dividends but changed that. There can also be some special one-time dividends as Microsoft did the following year according to the Wall Street Journal: The $32 billion one-time dividend payment, which comes to $3 for each share of Microsoft stock, could be a measurable stimulus to the U.S. economy -- and is expected to arrive just in time for holiday shopping. Course companies can also reduce to stop dividends as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757", "text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "613fb19903e86d17b4d0dae3b5a7afe7", "text": "One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65341cfd9b4397498cdd8102ad2dbd20", "text": "No. Share are equity in companies that usually have revenue streams and/or potential for creating them. That revenue can be used to pay out dividends to the shareholders or to grow the company and increase its value. Most companies get their revenue from their customers, and customers rarely give their money to a company without getting some good or service in exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95016e01b71321938f2cd9859aed3f34", "text": "If you have a public company and shareholder A owns 25% and shareholder B owns 25%, and lets say the remaining 50% is owned by various funds/small investors. Say profits are 100mil, and a dividend is payed. Say 50 mil worth is payed out as dividend and 30 mil is kept as retained earnings for future investment. Can the remaining 20 mil be distributed to shareholders A and B, so that they both get 10mil each? Can certain shareholders be favored and get a bigger cut of profits than the dividends pay out is my question basically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "48f0b8daf92c94325fe3993451500c40", "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.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9470ab93cde0cf665a8ad848cc123a", "text": "\"The short answer is that banking is complicated, but the bank really doesn't need your money because it can get it from the Fed almost free, it can only use 90% of the money you give the bank, it can only make money on that 90% from very low-risk and thus low-return investments, and as it has to show a profit to its shareholders it will take whatever cut it needs to off the top of the returns. All of these things combine to make savings account interest roughly .05% in the US right now. The longer answer: All FDIC-insured banks (which the US requires all \"\"depositor\"\" banks to be) are subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. The very first rule that all banks must comply with is that depositor money cannot be invested in things the Fed terms \"\"risky\"\". This limits banks from investing your money in things that have high returns, like stocks, commodities and hedges, because along with the high possible returns come high risk. Banks typically can only invest your savings in T-debt and in certain Fed-approved AAA bonds, which have very low risk and so very little return. The investment of bank assets into risky market funds was a major contributor to the financial crisis; with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, banks had been allowed to integrate their FDIC-insured depositor business with their \"\"investment banking\"\" business (not FDIC insured). While still not allowed to bet on \"\"risky\"\" investments with deposits, banks were using their own money (retained profits, corporate equity/bond money) to bet heavily in the markets, and were investing depositor funds in faulty AAA-rated investment objects like CDOs. When the housing market crashed, banks had to pull out of the investment market and cash in hedges like credit-default swaps to cover the depositor losses, which sent a tidal wave through the rest of the market. Banks really can't even loan your money out to people who walk in, like you'd think they would and which they traditionally used to do; that's how the savings and loan crisis happened, when speculators took out huge loans to invest, lost the cash, declared bankruptcy and left the S&Ls (and ultimately the FDIC) on the hook for depositors' money. So, the upshot of all this is that the bank simply won't give you more on your money than it is allowed to make on it. In addition, there are several tools that the Fed has to regulate economic activity, and three big ones play a part. First is the \"\"Federal Funds Rate\"\"; this is the interest rate that the Fed charges on loans made to other banks (which is a primary source of day-to-day liquidity for these banks). Money paid as interest to the Fed is effectively removed from the economy and is a way to reduce the money supply. Right now the FFR is .25% (that's one quarter of one percent) which is effectively zero; borrow a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) from the Fed for one month and you'll pay them a scant $208,333. Banks lend to other banks at a rate based on the FFR, called the Interbank Rate (usually adding some fraction of a percent so the lending bank makes money on the loan). This means that the banks can get money from the Fed and from other banks very cheaply, which means they don't have to offer high interest rates on savings to entice individual depositors to save their money with the bank. Second is \"\"quantitative easing\"\", which just means the Fed buys government bonds and pays for them with \"\"new\"\" money. This happens all the time; remember those interest charges on bank loans? To keep the money supply stable, the Fed must buy T-debt at least in the amount of the interest being charged, otherwise the money leaves the economy and is not available to circulate. The Fed usually buys a little more than it collects in order to gradually increase the money supply, which allows the economy to grow while controlling inflation (having \"\"too much money\"\" and so making money worth less than what it can buy). What's new is that the Fed is increasing the money supply by a very large amount, by buying bonds far in excess of the (low) rates it's charging, and at fixed prices determined by the yield the Fed wants to induce in the markets. In the first place, with the Fed buying so many, there are fewer for institutions and other investors to buy. This increases the demand, driving down yields as investors besides the Fed are willing to pay a similar price, and remember that T-debt is one of the main things banks are allowed to invest your deposits in. Inflation isn't a concern right now despite the large amount of new money being injected, because the current economy is so lackluster right now that the new cash is just being sat upon by corporations and being used by consumers to pay down debt, instead of what the Fed and Government want us to do (hire, update equipment, buy houses and American cars, etc). In addition, the \"\"spot market price\"\" for a T-bond, or any investment security, is generally what the last guy paid. By buying Treasury debt gradually at a fixed price, the Fed can smooth out \"\"jitters\"\" in the spot price that speculators may try to induce by making low \"\"buy offers\"\" on T-debt to increase yields. Lastly, the Fed can tell banks that they must keep a certain amount of their deposits in \"\"reserve\"\", basically by keeping them in a combination of cash in the vault, and in accounts with the Fed itself. This has a dual purpose; higher reserve rates allow a bank to weather a \"\"run\"\" (more people than usual wanting their money) and thus reduces risk of failure. An increased reserves amount also reduces the amount of money circulating in the economy, because obviously if the banks have to keep a percentage of assets in cash, they can't invest that cash. Banks are currently required to keep 10% of \"\"deposited assets\"\" (the sum of all checking and savings accounts, but not CDs) in cash. This compounds the other problems with banks' investing; not only are they not getting a great return on your savings, they can only use 90% of your savings to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980d020cae85bd5eb02613892ba3ba13", "text": "There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76188a98f807d3db4916876259ef74a0", "text": "Typically developing economics are marked by moderate to high inflation [as they are growing at a faster pace], higher in savings rate and higher lending rates. If you reduce the lending rate, more business / start-up will borrow at cheaper rate, this in turn means lowers savings rate and leads to higher inflation. To combat this Central Banks make borrowing expensive, which lowers inflation and increases the saving rate. Essentially all these 3 are tied up. As to why these countries offer higher interest on USD is because most of the developing countries have trade [current account] deficit. They need to bring in more USD in the country. One of the ways is to encourage Non Resident Citizens to park their foreign earning back home, ensuring more funds USD inflow. The rate differential also acts as a guide as to how the currency would be valued against USD. For example if you get 8% on USD, less than 12% had you converted same to Rouble, at the end of say 3 years, the exchange rate between USD and Rouble would factor that 4%, ie rouble will go down. Developed countries on the other hand are marked by low inflation [they have already achieved everything] as there is no spurt in growth, it more BAU. They are also characterized by low savings and lending rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d8a4996f5fc9b09d890ff30b2088fc5", "text": "\"The 8% rate offered by Russian banks on US Dollar accounts reflects the financial problems they have. They would prefer to lend US Dollars on the international financial markets at the same rate as US banks, but loans to Russian banks are considered to be more risky. In fact, the estimated \"\"default\"\" risk is ~6%. Your ruble deposits at Russian banks are most likely backed by state guarantees, which reduces the risk and therefore the effective interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a3c9a63c8da65415a683dcd909b747", "text": "Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b183651f1a0a7f534883338f1b88285", "text": "Some comments above are inaccurate. Advertised interest rates for deposits and savings in Russia (from Russian banks) are generally for Ruble (RUB) denominated accounts; however, USD and EUR denominated accounts still offer favorable interest rates when compared to Western counterparts. For example, Sberbank advertises these Annual Interest Rates: RUB — 8.79–11.52% USD — 2.05–5.31% EUR — 2.05–5.21%", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "735a302c22d48444116baf1755b339fc", "text": "Fees mostly. BOA, for example, just announced $5/month for for all debit cards. Chase has foreign transaction fees, mostly hidden. BOA once famously raised interest rates on credit card holders to 28%, legally. Also, some people do not like patronizing a bank with CEOs that bankrupt the company and then get multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Finally some people have a problem with banks or institutions that suspend accounts based on political or unproven legal proceedings (ala Wikileaks and BOA). Credit unions are less like to be involved in this sort of activity since they are not privately traded, and as such they are not ruled by shareholders who demand bottom line results at all costs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "499cbb262d13898effa9df7e596acf0a", "text": "Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns. Interest rates have to come back up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39a433a84ddadd612b78e80c78d4808f", "text": "\"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4f920eeed065e3487923081fa2b6101", "text": "There is some sense that negative interest rates make no sense, because then two things appear to happen Neither of these are true in reality. But then we are edging towards a deflationary time, during which the common understanding of money and what to do with money reverses. During deflation, spending is better (to an extent) because the buying power of money is less as time passes, so also saving is less worthwhile. But for the bond market (and your question), the reason why people are still investing in negative interest bonds, is that they are going to be looking to capital gain to make their money. Over time the bond price fluctuates and as the bond approaches maturity, the bond price equates to the face value minus whatever interest will be received, or in this plus whatever interest will need to be payed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7f04d94c8e7840ef8cb467b3b6f302", "text": "\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2df7330af4b3b2e7c527eca5d177db4", "text": "\"As to where the interest comes from: The same place it comes from in other kinds of savings accounts. The bank takes the money you deposit and invests it elsewhere, traditionally by lending it out to others (hence the concept of a \"\"savings and loan\"\" bank). They make a profit as long as the interest they give for \"\"borrowing\"\" from you, plus the cost of administering the savings accounts and loans, is less than the interest they charge for lending to others. No, they don't have to pay you interest -- but if they didn't, you'd be likely to deposit your funds at another bank which did. Their ideal goal is to pay as little as possible without losing depositors, while charging as much as possible without losing borrowers. (yeah, I know, typo corrected) Why do they get higher interest rate than they pay you? Mostly because your deposits and interest are essentially guaranteed, whereas the folks they're lending to may be late paying or default on those loans. As with any kind of investment, higher return requires more work and/or higher risk, plus (ususally) larger reserves so you can afford to ride out any losses that do occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16aafea1672aa9af5d4a70a0f304d5fc", "text": "In the United States there are some specific savings accounts, some of which have rules from the federal government (education) and some that are setup by the bank/credit Union. Some institutions have a Christmas club, where money is set aside each week or each month and then you are given access at the end of the time period. Some institutions have accounts that pay CD rates but allow you to add funds during the period. They will have some flexibility in setting the time period. I have seen accounts that are designed to save up for a big purchase, or for a specific time period (summer vacation) Ask your bank. Or better yet look at a variety of banks websites for their rate sheet. That will explain all the different account types, rates, and rules. My credit Union allows a large number of sub accounts so that you don't have to commingle the funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bee78018b81af59a0e3e08da5d804a6", "text": "The article is talking about relative cost. You could use the cash Schiller P/E ratio as a proxy. That's unit of price per unit of earning. The answer to your question is one time in history, during the 2000 dot com bubble. It's higher than 2008 before the downturn. You are paying more for the same earnings. That has nothing to do with the size of the economy and everything to do with interest rates being too low for too long", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77c2fae1bcc61cc4125f07a6008c68bd", "text": "Monetizing loan is akin to loan money the banks don't have so they can lend money to people/state that don't have money. The ECB and the FED are theorically independant from the political power, and in pratique they more often than naught proove it (at least for the ECB), after that being independent from the financial sector they lend to... that's another question. Rates are low not because they monetize but because they want to do so without inducing inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90e6f21f589db948c8ece7bcab290e55", "text": "\"(Real) interest rates are so low because governments want people to use their money to improve the economy by spending or investing rather than saving. Their idea is that by consuming or investing you will help to create jobs that will employ people who will spend or invest their pay, and so on. If you want to keep this money for the future you don't want to spend it and interest rates make saving unrewarding therefore you ought to invest. That was the why, now the how. Inflation protected securities, mentioned in another answer, are the least risk way to do this. These are government guaranteed and very unlikely to default. On the other hand deflation will cause bigger problems for you and the returns will be pitiful compared with historical interest rates. So what else can be done? Investing in companies is one way of improving returns but risk starts to increase so you need to decide what risk profile is right for you. Investing in companies does not mean having to put money into the stock market either directly or indirectly (through funds) although index tracker funds have good returns and low risk. The corporate bond market is lower risk for a lesser reward than the stock market but with better returns than current interest rates. Investment grade bonds are very low risk, especially in the current economic climate and there are exchange traded funds (ETFs) to diversify more risk away. Since you don't mention willingness to take risk or the kind of amounts that you have to save I've tried to give some low risk options beyond \"\"buy something inflation linked\"\" but you need to take care to understand the risks of any product you buy or use, be they a bank account, TIPS, bond investments or whatever. Avoid anything that you don't fully understand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbca77f91a3bfecbbbdc58c5647c8e10", "text": "My local credit Union has insured IRA accounts or IRA certificates that get the same low interest rates that non-IRA accounts receive. They get NCUA insurance, which is the equivalence of FDIC insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d43a765c37b5c6be67a1a8905054dabd", "text": "That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f27db9be9f670568435ea70473cb7ef7", "text": "Well, people have been saying interest rates have to go up for years now and have been wrong so far. Also there is an opportunity cost in waiting to buy - if another five years passes with nothing happen, you earn 0% on checking accounts, but at least earn 1.65% per year or so on your 10y bond.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f80e0f2e047fe9bbcdf8b5f25628172f", "text": "Companies with existing borrowings (where borrowings are on variable interest rates) or in the case with fixed interest rates - companies that get new borrowings - would pay less interest on these borrowings, so their cost will go down and profits up, making them more attractive to investors. So, in general lower interest rates will make the share market a more attractive investment (than some alternatives) as investors are willing to take on more risk for potentially higher returns. This will usually result in the stock market rising as it is currently in the US. EDIT: The case for rising interest rates A central bank's purpose when raising interest rates is to slow down an economy that is booming. As interest rates rise consumers will tighten up their spending and companies will thus have less revenue on top of higher costs for maintaining existing borrowing (with variable rates) or new borrowing (with fixed rates). If rates are higher companies may also defer new borrowings to expand their business. This will eventually lead to lower profits and lower valuation for these companies. Another thing that happens is that as banks start increasing interest for saving accounts investors will look for safety where they can get a higher return (than before) without the risk of the stock market. With lowering profits and valuations, and investor's money flowing out of shares and into the money market, so will company share prices drop (although this may lag a bit with the share market still booming due to greed. But once the boom stops watchout for the crash).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "983e84eb31d74702554938415b8ccc43", "text": "One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2d11e107b45fdc610c799bfd97e53ba5", "text": "\"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income. Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income. (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of \"\"Gross Income\"\" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income. Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons. If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s)).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15ad22bcdc1ba71d64e2cdba622599e3", "text": "Do not mix personal accounts and corporate accounts. If you're paid as your self person - this money belongs to you, not the corporation. You can contribute it to the corporation, but it is another tax event and you should understand fully the consequences. Talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). If they pay to you personally (1099) - it goes on your Schedule C, and you pay SE taxes on it. If they pay to your corporation, the corporation will pay it to you as salary, and will pay payroll taxes on it. Generally, payroll through corporation will be slightly more expensive than regular schedule C. If you have employees/subcontractors, though, you may earn money which is not from your own performance, in which case S-Corp may be an advantage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08c639825810cbc9f961658068dc39d2", "text": "Is it normal in QuickBooks to have credit card expenses being shows as liabilities? Is there a way I can correct this? If they are expenses they shouldn't be negative liabilities unless you overpaid your credit card by that amount. It sounds like perhaps when you linked the account the credit/debit mapping may have been mixed up. I've not used QB Online, but it looks like you might have to un-link the account, move all the existing transactions to 'excluded' and then link the account again and flip-flop the debit/credit mapping from what it is now. Hopefully there's an easier way. This QB community thread seems to address the same issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df72925f51029c060510200978db244d", "text": "Yes. This income would be reported on schedule SE. Normally, you will not owe any tax if the amount is less than $400. Practically, $100 in a garage sale is not why the IRS created the form SE. I wouldn't lose sleep over keeping track of small cash sales over the course of a year. However, if you have the information I'm not going to tell you not to report it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23daa071e6209ff4ccaf3a2c8cc13b2e", "text": "You need to talk to an accountant who practices tax accounting, preferaby someone who is an Enrolled Agent (EA) with the IRS, and possibly an attorney who specializes in tax law. There are multiple issues here, and the executor of your father's estate might need to be involved here too. Presumably you were a minor in 2007 since the transactions took place in a custodial account, and perhaps you were a dependent of your father in 2007. So, were the transactions reported on your father's 2007 income tax return? or did he file a separate income tax return in your name? You say you have a W2 for 2007. So you were earning some income in 2007? This complicates matters. It is necessary to determine who has the responsibility to file income tax returns for a minor with earned income. Above all, I urge you to not file income tax returns on your own or using a tax return preparation program, or after talking to a tax return preparation service (where you will likely get someone who works on a seasonal basis and is unlikely to be familiar with tax law as of 2007).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "268e69dc5931c26a823eba881d202228", "text": "Conceptually, the entries are: Yes. And since you're the sole owner, your basis will equal to the equity balance on the balance sheet. Keep in mind the book and tax basis will probably be different, so you may want to keep a separate calculation to track the tax basis. There is no journal additional journal entry for this. If you're using bookkeeping software, be sure to research its book-closing/closing entries feature, as it is handled differently depending on the software. For example Quickbooks doesn't explicitly close its books, but re-computes the balance sheet dynamically depending on the selected date range.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "447c3f654c405b11900b5814b150328a", "text": "Alright, team! I found answers to part 1) and part 2) that I've quote below, but still need help with 3). The facts in the article below seem to point to the ability for the LLC to contribute profit sharing of up to 25% of the wages it paid SE tax on. What part of the SE tax is that? I assume the spirit of the law is to only allow the 25% on the taxable portion of the income, but given that I would have crossed the SS portion of SE tax, I am not 100%. (From http://www.sensefinancial.com/services/solo401k/solo-401k-contribution/) Sole Proprietorship Employee Deferral The owner of a sole proprietorship who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A sole proprietorship may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (1) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (2) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k) plan. A business entity’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline. Single Member LLC Employee Deferral The owner of a single member LLC who is under the age of 50 may make employee deferral contributions of as much as $17,500 to a Solo 401(k) plan for 2013 (Those 50 and older can tack on a $5,500 annual catch-up contribution, bringing their annual deferral contribution to as much as $23,000). Solo 401k contribution deadline rules dictate that plan participant must formally elect to make an employee deferral contribution by Dec. 31. However, the actual contribution can be made up until the tax-filing deadline. Pretax and/or after-tax (Roth) funds can be used to make employee deferral contributions. Profit Sharing Contribution A single member LLC business may make annual profit-sharing contributions to a Solo 401(k) plan on behalf of the business owner and spouse. Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(3) states that employer contributions are limited to 25 percent of the business entity’s income subject to self-employment tax. Schedule C sole-proprietors must base their maximum contribution on earned income, an additional calculation that lowers their maximum contribution to 20 percent of earned income. IRS Publication 560 contains a step-by-step worksheet for this calculation. In general, compensation can be defined as your net earnings from self-employment activity. This definition takes into account the following eligible tax deductions: (i) the deduction for half of self-employment tax and (ii) the deduction for contributions on your behalf to the Solo 401(k). A single member LLC’s Solo 401(k) contributions for profit sharing component must be made by its tax-filing deadline.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6332c443215c5f6a7e53bd0f681b871a", "text": "\"If your business is structured as a partnership or sole proprietorship you call this investment \"\"partner equity\"\". If instead it is structured as a corporation, then the initial investment is called \"\"paid-in capital\"\". Either way, this represents the capital the initial investors or partners provided to the company in exchange for their ownership stake. The most important thing in your case is that since that initial investment is in the form of inventory, you are going to have to document the value of that investment somehow. You will definitely need a comprehensive manifest of what you contributed, including titles and condition, and if possible you should document the prices at which similar items are being offered for sale at the time you start operating. Having this information will support your claims as to the fair market value of the start-up contribution, should the tax authorities decide to question it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32637ccc9962c2adcab62d05df912a25", "text": "The short answer is you are not required to. The longer answer depends on whether you are referring to your organization as a sole proprietorship in your state, or for federal taxation. For federal tax purposes, I would suggest filing each side job as a separate Sch C though. The IRS uses the information you provide about your sole proprietorship to determine whether or not your categorization of expenses makes sense for the type of business you are. This information is used by the IRS to help them determine who to audit. So, if you are a service based business, but you are reporting cost of goods sold, you are likely to be audited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "559b05e48a817e0e9841d2cc181a9a71", "text": "\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \"\"profit distribution\"\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \"\"profits from S-Corp\"\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "316710461de83750af605d1897addf25", "text": "Chris, since you own your own company, nobody can stop you from charging your personal expenses to your business account. IRS is not a huge fan of mixing business and personal expenses and this practice might indicate to them that you are not treating your business seriously, and it should classify your business as a hobby. IRS defines deductible business expense as being both: ordinary AND necessary. Meditation is not an ordinary expense (other S-corps do not incur such expense.) It is not a necessary expense either. Therefore, you cannot deduct this expense. http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Deducting-Business-Expenses", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ef47ed887fa8f884430c6b071e1e720", "text": "This answer assumes you're asking about how to handle this issue in the USA. I generally downvote questions that ask about a tax/legal issue and don't bother providing the jurisdiction. In my opinion it is extremely rude. Seeing that you applied for an LLC, I think that you somehow consider it as a relevant piece of information. You also attribute some importance to the EIN which has nothing to do with your question. I'm going to filter out that noise. As an individual/sole-proprietor (whether under LLC or not), you cannot use fiscal years, only calendar years. It doesn't matter if you decide to have your LLC taxed as S-Corp as well, still calendar year. Only C-Corp can have a fiscal year, and you probably don't want to become a C-Corp. So the year ends on December 31, and whether accrual or cash - you can only deduct expenses you incurred until then. Also, you must declare the income you got until then, which in your case will be the full amount of funding - again regardless of whether you decided to be cash-based or accrual based. So the main thing you need to do is to talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your state) and learn about the tax law relevant to your business and its implications on your actions. There may be some ways to make it work better, and there are some ways in which you can screw yourself up completely in your scenario, so do get a professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df87670ac7382775987c809f727ed906", "text": "\"A.1 and B.1 are properly balanced, but \"\"Business Expense\"\" is an expense, not an asset. The T entries should be timestamped. The time should be equal to the time on the credit card receipts. This will make audit and balancing easier. A or B can be used, but if the the business is to be reimbursed for personal expenses, the accounts should be renamed to reflect that fact. More explicit account names could be \"\"Business expense - stationary\"\" and \"\"Personal expense - lunch\"\" or even better \"\"Personal expense - cammil - lunch\"\". With a consistent format, the account names can be computer parsed for higher resolution and organization, but when tallying these high resolution accounts, debits & credits should always be used. When it comes time to collect from employees, only accounts with \"\"Personal expense\"\" need be referenced. When it comes time to collect from \"\"cammil\"\", only net accounts of \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\" need be referenced. An example of higher resolution, to determine what \"\"cammil\"\" owes, would be to copy the main books, reverse any account beginning with \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\", and then take the balance. Using the entries in the question as an example, here's the account to determine \"\"cammil\"\"'s balance: Now, after all such balancing entries are performed, the net credit \"\"Personal expense - cammil\"\" is what \"\"cammil\"\" owes to the business. The scheme for account names should be from left to right, general to specific.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45d5ec4b229bc9bf365f2b849ee8988", "text": "\"-Alain Wertheimer I'm a hobbyist... Most (probably all) of those older items were sold both prior to my establishing the LLC This is a hobby of yours, this is not your business. You purchased all of these goods for your pleasure, not for their future profit. The later items that you bought after your LLC was establish served both purposes (perks of doing what you love). How should I go about reporting this income for the items I don't have records for how much I purchased them for? There's nothing you can do. As noted above, these items (if you were to testify in court against the IRS). \"\"Losses from the sale of personal-use property, such as your home or car, aren't tax deductible.\"\" Source Do I need to indicate 100% of the income because I can't prove that I sold it at a loss? Yes, if you do not have previous records you must claim a 100% capital gain. Source Addition: As JoeTaxpayer has mentioned in the comments, the second source I posted is for stocks and bonds. So at year begin of 2016, I started selling what I didn't need on eBay and on various forums [January - September]. Because you are not in the business of doing this, you do not need to explain the cost; but you do need to report the income as Gross Income on your 1040. Yes, if you bought a TV three years ago for a $100 and sold it for $50, the IRS would recognize you earning $50. As these are all personal items, they can not be deducted; regardless of gain or loss. Source Later in the year 2016 (October), I started an LLC (October - December) If these are items that you did not record early in the process of your LLC, then it is reported as a 100% gain as you can not prove any business expenses or costs to acquire associated with it. Source Refer to above answer. Refer to above answer. Conclusion Again, this is a income tax question that is split between business and personal use items. This is not a question of other's assessment of the value of the asset. It is solely based on the instruments of the IRS and their assessment of gains and losses from businesses. As OP does not have the necessary documents to prove otherwise, a cost basis of $0 must be assumed; thus you have a 100% gain on sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87c9d0ed048118e676a8196605eb034b", "text": "A computer is a special case because the IRS thinks that you might be using it for personal applications. You may need to keep a log, or be able to state that you also have another computer for non-business use. That said, if your schedule C shows a small profit then you don't need to itemize expenses, just state the total.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22bc07702a3ba5e7d7fc61ddff925a0d", "text": "You should pay things off every month. You don't want to be paying 10%-25% interest if you don't have to. If you regularly use you card, the credit agencies can't tell the difference. The way it works is that every month, they send the credit agencies your current balance and if you paid the last bill on time. There is nothing that indicates if this is a standing balance, or if you charged all of it since the last payment. Any business that you legitimately owe a debt to can report that to the credit agencies. Not all of them do. This includes utilities, cell phone companies, landlords, etc. If any of them report overdue items it will show up on your credit report, and your credit card company can use that to raise you interest rate. Some cards will automatically raise you credit limit. They are basically looking to make money fro you. If you often charge near the limit, and pay the minimum balance each month, they may raise your limit to get you to charge more, and pay more interest. You can also call them and ask. They have some internal rules to decide if, based on your history with them and your credit history, if you are a good risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa0b4a937bebc51fe2f72ca4f027888b", "text": "I think you got the message mixed up a little: Racking up big balances can hurt your scores, regardless of whether you pay your bills in full each month. What's typically reported to the credit bureaus, and thus calculated into your scores, are the balances reported on your last statements. (That doesn't mean paying off your balances each month isn't financially smart -- it is -- just that the credit scores don't care.) You typically can increase your scores by limiting your charges to 30% or less of a card's limit. -- from 7 Ways to Fix Your Credit Score In other words, ALWAYS pay off your balance if you can. But don't fill up your card to the max of your credit limit each month. i.e. if your credit limit is $5000, only spend $2000 each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f73291fad05f11d85e9a94aa8a7389b", "text": "Always pay on time, and stop listening to whoever is telling you not to -- they are clueless. Credit cards are revolving accounts with a grace period. The balance owed is due on the statement date, and you have a grace period of 20-40 days to pay. Paying bills on time is the single most important thing that you can do to have a good credit score. Always pay on time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2141da6b860a33f040ec308bbd9ff0c3", "text": "This is a slightly different reason to any other answer I have seen here about irrationality and how being rationally aware of one's irrationality (in the future or in different circumstances) can lead you to make decisions which on the face of it seem wrong. First of all, why do people sometimes maintain balances on high-interest debt when they have savings? Standard advice on many money-management sites and forums is to withdraw the savings to pay down the debt. However, I think there is a problem with this. Suppose you have $5,000 in a savings account, and a $2,000 credit card balance. You are paying more interest on the credit card than you get from the savings account, and it seems that you should withdraw some money from the savings account, and pay off the cc. However, the difference between the two scenarios, other than the interest you lose by keeping the cc balance, is your motivation for saving. If you have a credit card balance of $2,000, you might be obliged to pay a minimum payment of $100 each month. If you have any extra money, you will be rewarded if you pay more in to the credit card, by seeing the balance go down and understanding that you will soon be free from receiving this awful bill each month. To maintain your savings goal, it's enough to agree with yourself that you won't do any new spending on the cc, or withdraw any savings. Now suppose that you decide to pay off the cc with the savings. There is now nothing 'forcing' you to save $100 each month. When you get to the end of the month, you have to motivate yourself that you will be adding spare cash to your $3,000 savings balance, rather than that you 'have to' pay down your cc. Yes, if you spend the spare cash instead of saving it, you get something in return for it. But it is possible that spending $140 on small-scale discretionary spending (things you don't need) actually gets you less for your money than paying the credit card company $40 interest and saving $100? You might even be tempted to start spending on your credit card again, knowing that you have a 0 balance, and that you 'can always pay it off out of savings'. It's easy to analogize this to a situation with two types of debt. Suppose that you have a $2,000 debt to your parents with no interest and a $2,000 loan at high interest, and you get a $2,000 windfall. Let's assume that your parents don't need the money in a hurry and aren't hassling you to pay them (otherwise you could consider the guilt or the hassle as a form of emotional interest rate). Might it not be better to pay your parents off? If you do, you are likely to keep paying off your loan out of necessity of making the regular payments. In 20 paychecks (or whatever) you might be debt free. If you pay off your loan, you lose the incentive to save. After 20 months you still owe your parents $2,000. I am not saying that this is always what makes sense. Just that it could make sense. Note that this is an opposite to the 'Debt Snowball' method. That method says that it's better to pay off small debts, because that way you have more free cash flow to pay off the larger debts. The above argues that this is a bad idea, because you might spend the increased cash flow on junk. It would be better to keep around as many things as possible which have minimum payments, because it restricts you to paying things rather than gives you the choice of whether to save or spend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4bad8b443e8f4992518d4ee53d3a81b", "text": "If it's feasible, try to get one card down to zero balance, and preferably one of your cash-back cards. Then keep that at zero every month (pay it off in full), and use it for your purchases as you describe above. The idea would be to get it so that you are not paying interest on your month to month purchases. This not only reduces the 20% or whatever that you're paying on that balance, but also the 20% or whatever you're paying on those purchases - remember, a card you carry a balance on charges you interest on those purchases from the current month. If this isn't feasible (if these are all very high balance cards), then I suppose the way you're currently doing it would be okay, though I think you're overthinking things to some extent - but with 80% interest, if that's a significant pile of money, you may need to as clearly that needs to be tackled first. I think it's mostly better for you to pay your day to day stuff out of pocket and not use your cards the way you are suggesting, but with the 80% loan(s) you may need to. The reason I say it's better not to use your card the way you suggest is that it is difficult to do properly and never get it wrong (i.e., never go over a balance), and it's also leaving you in the habit of using credit. It doesn't help you budget necessarily, either. Instead, set up a fully developed budget that includes all of those minimum payments and pay them. Certainly once you have the > 50% debt handled, I would switch to this method (not using credit cards at all).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a0c340b3bf375e4f39ea4894b91e6b", "text": "\"Ironically, the worst financial advice I read comes from \"\"bankers.\"\" The top dozen members here can be trusted to give better advice than the average banker. Your score is not improved by maintaining a balance, only by using the card(s) regularly. No need to carry charges month to month and pay interest, rather, have the bill reflect a 1-9% utilization. I'd recommend Credit Karma to see how the factors affect your score. FICO scoring prefers to see a large number of accounts, low utilization, high average account age, low number of inquiries, no late payments. CK will let you see a simulated score and how it changes based on these variables.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5077894aaa3a2ea67000dba261b4cf5", "text": "\"One of the things that you have to be aware of is a little gotcha in the credit utilization rate. They, or at least the credit company I worked for, used the \"\"high balance\"\" in figuring the credit utilization, not the ending balance. For example, say you had a single card with a $2000 credit limit and used it to charge everything during the month. Say that the high balance was $1900 and you paid it down to zero at the end of the month. The company would calculate your credit utilization at 95%. This is not good and not really fair, but that was the way it was done. Increasing the credit limit helps, but you can also usually make interim payments, say as a paycheck comes in, during the month, if you have an online account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d74c157a41a9d5a8f0fb4c2a3cd6e00", "text": "It is COMPLETELY no use to pay earlier (during a billing cycle) to better your credit score! Your credit score gets affected ONLY once a month from each creditor, and that happens when they post your monthly statement. Thus, no matter what you do or pay and how many times a month or how many days earlier than your due date, it has NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER on your score. Anything you do will be reflected only after the statement. What you pay in between those two statements is irrelevant. So, as far as credit score goes IT DOESN'T MATTER. However, if you want to save on interest being charged, it is wise to pay as early as possible, so your balance is as low as possible for day-by-day calculation of your interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b9620a800b6f6147c6c93aeefef92c5", "text": "If you pay your statement balance in full before the due date you will never pay a cent in interest no matter what your interest rate is.* In fact, I don't even know what my interest rates are. Credit card companies offer this sort of thing in the hopes you will spend more than you can afford to pay completely in those first 15 months. * Unless you use a cash advance, with those you will accrue interest immediately upon receiving the cash sometimes with an additional fee on top.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83dfb8bae683361cff5422a87ac9b70", "text": "\"The fact that you pay the bill reliably is going to count more for your credit rating than anything else, even if you are paying it off in full every month. Lenders seem to like to see at least one instance where you charged a large balance, held it a couple months, then paid it off in full... but I wouldn't go out of my way to do that. Remember that the credit card company is making money on transaction fees as well as interest. If you're pushing money through their system, they're happy. They'd be happier if you were paying them interest too -- reportedly, they actually refer to those of us who pay in full every month as \"\"deadbeats\"\" -- but they aren't going to kick you out or ding your credit rating for it. The quote you give says that a small balance \"\"may be slightly better\"\". I submit that \"\"may be slightly\"\" is too small a difference to be worth worrying about, unless you have reason to believe that your credit rating actively needs to be repaired. (And as noted in the comments, it's actually stated even less strongly than that!) Personal recommendation: You can get a free credit report each year from each of the \"\"big three\"\" credit rating agencies. Those reports usually include a brief explanation of what they think the most negative item on your record is. The phrasing of those explanations is often somewhat misleading, but I'd still suggest that you get these reports and see what they think would improve your rating. I'm willing to bet it won't be \"\"doesn't carry a high enough debt balance.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1e4f845de85823dfcc1a47aae283ee6", "text": "it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. This is a myth. Will it make much of a difference? You are paying additional interest even though you have the means to pay off the cards completely. Credit score is a dynamic number and it really only matters if you are looking to make a big purchase (vehicle, home), or perhaps auto insurance or employment. Pay off your credit cards, consolidate your debt, and buy yourself a beer with the money you will be saving. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55e0198a883112249e659ac901527644", "text": "If you've got the money to pay off your credit cards, do it. Today, if possible. There is no need to pay another penny of interest to them. They may or may not cancel your cards. That is up to them. We can't know what will trigger an individual bank to cancel your card. The answers you got on your other question offer some speculation on why some banks might cancel, but this is not something banks reveal. Anything you do on your own to try to keep the cards open is just a guess, and may or may not succeed. But ask yourself: why do you want to keep these cards? Is it for the convenience of the card? I agree that credit cards (paid in full monthly) are convenient, but when they start costing you money, they aren't worth it anymore, in my opinion. Debit cards have most of the same conveniences of credit cards, and are free. If it is for emergencies, I recommend instead building up an emergency cash fund. That way, if an emergency arises, you won't be forced to borrow money at high credit card interest rates. If the reason you want to hang on to the credit card is so you can spend more than you have, then you will find yourself in the same situation again. If I were you, I would pay off the cards ASAP. If the banks cancel your cards, just switch to a debit card and be thankful that you are no longer continuously leaking money to the banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8cb30dfac269383f5139658d78c770d", "text": "Yes. You can pay towards your credit card before the actual bill becomes due every month. However, your credit usage ratio does not get sent to credit reporting agencies exactly on the day of your bill; this data can be sent to the agencies any day of the month. So, keep your balance low at all times throughout the month, not just right before your statement closing date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1ab358564480177021f5fb532b66329", "text": "I want to know if I cut the citi card in half for example, how much would the min payment go down? If you goal is to become debt-free, the minimum payment shouldn't matter. Even if the minimum payment goes down, continue your current payment amount (or more, if you can afford it) until the balance is paid off. Paying the minimum will just keep you in debt longer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f229eb53e942ea83863cbc7633be620", "text": "I am going to break rank slightly with the consensus so far. Here's the deal, it probably DOES help your credit slightly to pay it multiple times per month if it isn't a hassle, but the bump is likely to be minimal and very temporary. Here's why: A key component of your score is your credit usage ratio. That is the ratio of how much of your credit limits you are using. You want to keep this number down as low as possible. Now here is where it gets tricky. Although you have a grace period to pay off your card with no interest, the credit card companies don't generally report the balance as of the due date. They either report the high balance or an average balance over the month. That is, it is based on how much you use, not how much balance you carry over each month. It isn't very intuitive, but that's just how it is. So technically, keeping that balance lower over the course of the month WILL probably help you, but the credit usage ratio is generally a rolling average over the last x months, so the effect will wear off quickly. So it is probably not worth doing unless you know you are going to apply for a loan in the next 6 months and need a temporary, small bump. Another consideration is that paying early provides no real financial benefit in terms of finance charges, but you are giving up liquidity which does have some value. 1) You probably could get at least a little interest for keeping the money in your account a few more weeks. 2) If you have a major financial emergency, e.g. broken down car, you might appreciate the fact that you kept your options open to carry that balance over a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "239b261eb6f0510cc7e5d288f171eecc", "text": "\"Not everyone pays their balance in full every month. They may not make interest off of you or me but they do make interest off of a lot of cardholders. In many cases, the interest is variable and the larger your (running) balance, the higher your rate. If you're close to your limit and making minimum payments, you can literally take decades to pay off $2,000 or so. Some people don't pay at all every month and end up paying late fees. Some people use their cards overseas and pay foreign transaction fees. Ever take a cash advance? Me neither but they charge you interest right away for that instead of waiting until your statement. The list of fees and charges is as long as my arm and in tiny print. That's how they make money. The points/bonus/cash back and other rewards programs are to get you in the door. It's like when you see a luxury car advertised for a \"\"too good to be true\"\" price and you get to the lot and find out that the one they are selling for that price is a manual transmission without AC or a radio, they only had one and they sold it an hour before you got there. It got you on the lot though. The rewards programs function in much the same way (minus the disappearing part), they get you interested in their offering among a sea of virtually identical products but rest assured, if the card issuers were losing money because of them, they wouldn't exist for very long.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8f7a3ce6a223974c1913148af62ded8", "text": "\"To avoid nitpicks, i state up front that this answer is applicable to the US; Europeans, Asians, Canadians, etc may well have quite different systems and rules. You have nothing to worry about if you pay off your credit-card statement in full on the day it is due in timely fashion. On the other hand, if you routinely carry a balance from month to month or have taken out cash advances, then making whatever payment you want to make that month ASAP will save you more in finance charges than you could ever earn on the money in your savings account. But, if you pay off each month's balance in full, then read the fine print about when the payment is due very carefully: it might say that payments received before 5 pm will be posted the same day, or it might say before 3 pm, or before 7 pm EST, or noon PST, etc etc etc. As JoeTaxpayer says, if you can pay on-line with a guaranteed day for the transaction (and you do it before any deadline imposed by the credit-card company), you are fine. My bank allows me to write \"\"electronic\"\" checks on its website, but a paper check is mailed to the credit-card company. The bank claims that if I specify the due date, they will mail the check enough in advance that the credit-card company will get it by the due date, but do you really trust the USPS to deliver your check by noon, or whatever? Besides the bank will put a hold on that money the day that check is cut. (I haven't bothered to check if the money being held still earns interest or not). In any case, the bank disclaims all responsibility for the after-effects (late payment fees, finance charges on all purchases, etc) if that paper check is not received on time and so your credit-card account goes to \"\"late payment\"\" status. Oh, and my bank also wants a monthly fee for its BillPay service (any number of such \"\"electronic\"\" checks allowed each month). The BillPay service does include payment electronically to local merchants and utilities that have accounts at the bank and have signed up to receive payments electronically. All my credit-card companies allow me to use their website to authorize them to collect the payment that I specify from my bank account(s). I can choose the day, the amount, and which of my bank accounts they will collect the money from, but I must do this every month. Very conveniently, they show a calendar for choosing the date with the due date marked prominently, and as mhoran_psprep's comment points out, the payment can be scheduled well in advance of the date that the payment will actually be made, that is, I don't need to worry about being without Internet access because of travel and thus being unable to login to the credit-card website to make the payment on the date it is due. I can also sign up for AutoPay which takes afixed amount/minimum payment due/payment in full (whatever I choose) on the date due, and this will happen month after month after month with no further action necessary on my part. With either choice, it is up to the card company to collect money from my account on the day specified, and if they mess up, they cannot charge late payment fees or finance charge on new purchases etc. Also, unlike my bank, there are no fees for this service. It is also worth noting that many people do not like the idea of the credit-card company withdrawing money from their bank account, and so this option is not to everyone's taste.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c253f40e797ebdded76b3a0e223b40f0", "text": "I would take a closer look at each provider. I have one credit-card provider who when there is a large portion of credit available, they frequently offer promotions on balance transfers so you fill that credit, sometimes it can be 0% for xx months, or a very low % until paid off in full. If this is the case clear that card fully and balance transfer the remainder to get an even lower interest to make the repayments eaier to clear.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a74008f312d158040e8cebbef7e78c8e", "text": "How you should record the mortgage payments depends on if you are trying to achieve correct accounting, according to the standards, or if you are just tracking everything for you and your friends. If you're just keeping track for personal reasons, I'd suggest that you set up your check (or journal entry, your preference) how you'd like it to be recorded. Then, memorize that transaction. This allows you to use it as many times as you need to, without having to set it up each time. (Also note: there is no way to record a transaction that decreases cash and increases equity.) If you're trying to keep track of everything according to accounting standards, which it should be if you've set up an official business, then you have a lot more tracking to do with each payment. Mortgage payments technically do not affect the equity accounts of the owners. Each mortgage payment should decrease the bank balance, increase interest expense and decrease the mortgage balance, not to mention tracking any escrow account you may have. The equity accounts would be affected if the owners are contributing funds to the bank account, but equity would increase at the time the funds are deposited, not when the mortgage payments are made. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c776ae1e50f4a97d9e34f3bf6c8e8395", "text": "You could classify the mortgage as a different assets class and then create automated additions and deductions to the account as deems fit. other than that quickbooks online is a bit fishy so it seems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a129b49e6fa96db75858009a1b8c7591", "text": "What is the corporate structure? Your partnership agreement or LLC operating agreement should dictate how you approach this.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a9f3c77acba7dc65b21c04e277737cba", "text": "\"You are right on track with your idea of setting up a separate account for invoiced income. Create a new account with the type other asset and call it \"\"Receivables\"\" (or something similar). Every time you invoice a client, enter a credit to this account with the amount of the invoice. Once the client pays and you deposit a check, enter a transfer from the \"\"Receivables\"\" account to the bank account. EDIT I overlooked that you wish to account for not-yet-invoiced income. I think that's a bad idea. It will become confusing and will give you the false sense that your financial condition is better than it really is. There are plenty of stories about businesses that have stellar sales, but fail because of lack of cash flow (the business' bills become due before it gets paid by its own customers).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec9ed07eed727fa6ea5c2ba8cd7ad1f", "text": "My wife and I set up a shared bank account. We knew the monthly costs of the mortgage and estimated the cost of utilities. Each month, we transferred enough to cover these, plus about 20% so we could make an extra mortgage payment each year and build up an emergency fund, and did so using automatic transactions. Other shared expenses such as groceries, we handled on an ad-hoc basis, settling up every month or three. We initially just split everything 50-50 because we both earned roughly the same income. When that changed, we ended up going with a 60-40 split. We maintained our separate bank accounts, though this may have changed in the future. A system like this may work for you, or may at least provide a starting point for a discussion. And I do strongly advise having a frank and open discussion on these points. Dealing with money can be tricky in the bounds of a marriage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f0b1acb57b7544bd49bad2965c8fb9", "text": "\"Should is a very \"\"strong\"\" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (\"\"making a single account for a Person\"\"). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69f20bd44d5ef7300d1080dd2bf9ccce", "text": "\"There are different approaches, but here is what we do and what I recommend. Now that you are officially a married couple, open a joint bank account, and eliminate your individual accounts. There are several reasons for this. Having a joint account promotes unity and teamwork. When you only have a joint account, you do not have \"\"your income\"\" and \"\"her income,\"\" or \"\"your expenses\"\" and \"\"her expenses.\"\" You work together in everything. You discuss your goals and set your household budget together. If one of you makes more money than the other, that person is no longer \"\"worth more,\"\" because your incomes are pooled together. If one person with a higher income has more in their account than the other person does, it can lead to envy, which you do not want in your marriage. Having a joint account is more efficient and makes more sense. With separate accounts, who pays the rent/mortgage? Who pays the utilities, or buys the food? If you have separate accounts, it takes a lot of work to worry about what is \"\"fair\"\" when deciding how to divide up the expenses. With a single household budget and a joint account, you decide together what the household expenses are, and they get paid from one account. If one of you has debt, you both have debt. You work together to get it paid off and strengthen your financial situation in the process. Having a joint account forces you to discuss your finances together. Working toward common financial goals together is crucial in a strong marriage, but if you maintain your separate accounts, you might be tempted to put off these discussions until you are forced to by life circumstances. It is better to work together from the start, and joining your finances facilitates that. You are intending your marriage to last. Live your financial life like you believe that you are a team for life. If you live in a community property state, separate accounts are a fiction anyway; everything is treated as if it was pooled together in the event of a divorce. I understand that if you are used to having your own money, it can be difficult to give up that sole control over your income, but in my opinion, it is worth it. You will certainly hear of examples from couples who maintain separate accounts and make it work. In my humble opinion, combining your finances completely is easier to do right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fb5f84f227bcf9ce8d5c1fe5e39467d", "text": "\"I added \"\"Shared money in account\"\" (SMIA) as sub-account of my bank checking (CA) account and moved current difference to that account so total of CA was not changed but now private and shared money is separated. My cases would be handled the following The only downside I see is that now my balance in CA transaction log do not match exactly with bank so reconciliation will be slightly harder.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9", "text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbf8d5a2db71f056ab85223ef6589783", "text": "I did that. What is allowed changes over time, though — leading up to the crisis, lenders would approve at the flimsiest evidence. In particular, my SO had only been in the country a couple years and was at a sweet spot where lack of history was no longer counting against her. Running the numbers, the mortgage was a fraction of a percent cheaper in her name than in mine. Even though she used a “stated income” (self reported, not backed by job history) of the household, not just herself. The title was in her name, and would have cost money to have mine added later so we didn’t. This was in Texas, which is a “community property” state so after marriage for sure everything is “ours”.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f39fca14ea7afb4292fba4707c494ce", "text": "Your account entries are generally correct, but do note that the last transaction is a mixture of the balance sheet and income statement. If Quickbooks doesn't do this automatically then the expense must be manually removed from the balance sheet. The expense should be recognized on the balance sheet and income statement when it accrues, and it accrues when the prepaid rent is extinguished when consumed by the landlord, so that is when the second entry in your question should be booked. The cash flow statement will reflect all of these cash transactions immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8695e8030ee3269d15f22929ed6fbf9f", "text": "I know of websites that do this, but I don't know of banks that do. Is there any reason you want to do this at a bank rather than use a service? My main concern with using a bank for this would be the risk of overdraft fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a914636434e452ac8d108f7450b5140", "text": "I can't quite follow your question, so I'm proceeding under the following assumptions: - You paid £31,000 - Your partner paid £4,242 - You have at least one mortgage, which you both pay equally. If the relationship terminates, sell the property. You are reimbursed £31,000 and your partner is reimbursed £4,242. Any remaining proceeds from the sale are split 50-50. If the result is a net loss (i.e. you are underwater on your mortgage), you split the debt 50-50. If you are not both paying the same toward the mortgage, I'd split the profit or loss according to how much you each pay toward the mortgage. Of course, this is not the only possible way you can split things up. You can use pretty much any way you both think is fair. For example, maybe you should get more benefits from a profit because you contributed more up-front. The key thing, though, is that you must both agree in writing, in advance. This is reasonable; this is what I did, for example. Note that if the relationship ends, one or the other of you may wish to keep the property. I'd suggest including a clause in your written agreement simply disallowing this; specify criteria to force a sale. But I know lots of people are happy to allow this. They treat that situation as a forced sale from both people to one person. For example, if your partner chooses to stay in the house, he or she must buy the property from you at prevailing market rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b8aec839c09dcb7999a5de7634ce90b", "text": "\"We use mint for just that. We have a \"\"shared\"\" account. We each have the mobile app and share the same pin for the application (not our phones -- you can set a pin in the settings on the application). Thus we each share a login to the site, where we have setup all of our accounts. In the \"\"Your Profile\"\" link at the top of the page, you may select the Email & Alerts option. From here you may add a second e-mail account. This way if you go over a budget or have a bill upcoming each of you will get a notification. We have setup budgeting through the web site, and either of us can modify the budget via logging in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e98e4667c085a816c0741afb09a41f", "text": "I use QuickBooks online... It's really the best out there for the price, just make sure to never upgrade to an edition you aren't 100% sure you need or you're forever stuck essentially. That's the mess I'm in right now. Paying $20 more than necessary a month, but it's still cheaper than switching to, say, xero. The starter edition of QuickBooks online is a lot more powerful than the equivalent plans anywhere else for the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08c639825810cbc9f961658068dc39d2", "text": "Is it normal in QuickBooks to have credit card expenses being shows as liabilities? Is there a way I can correct this? If they are expenses they shouldn't be negative liabilities unless you overpaid your credit card by that amount. It sounds like perhaps when you linked the account the credit/debit mapping may have been mixed up. I've not used QB Online, but it looks like you might have to un-link the account, move all the existing transactions to 'excluded' and then link the account again and flip-flop the debit/credit mapping from what it is now. Hopefully there's an easier way. This QB community thread seems to address the same issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdc980ff5772058bbf3a0c61f9a81214", "text": "That's right. I wouldn't say that she directly caused Yahoo's downfall since that was put into motion long before she started. However, she did nothing that succeeded in changing Yahoo's trajectory after she took over. Yahoo could have done essentially nothing and it would have ended roughly the same. People are just upset that she got compensated quite well without achieving anything of significance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1e070296b81b6c3baa14905b3d3a636", "text": "Generally if there are enough details, they would match this up with your loan account and pass appropriate credit. The worst that can happen is; In either case, watch your Loan account statement and it should show you the credit. If this does not then ask the company and they should be able to trace it and rectify. Under no scenario you would lose money.", "title": "" } ]