Datasets:

---

nthakur

/

bge-retrieval-data-ivf-query-pruning-fixed-200K

like 0

[ { "docid": "cb60d460053ce5c63ebde8691c96b90a", "text": "Food is almost never a valid expense. Reason for it is simple - if you were not conducting business you would have to eat too. Ad 1. I don't see why travel in that case would not be a valid expense, as the only reason for you to travel there is for business reasons. Ad 2. Unlikely as there is a duality of purpose. So while part of it may be business, you are also getting personal benefit from the visit (coffee/cakes etc) so that generally is a no. Ad 3. No, while you can claim for entertainment of employees (to sensible extends), that doesn't work when entertaining clients. Ad 4. If any part of the trip is for leisure then you cannot claim it as business expense, sorry! If there is any duality of use then it's not a business expense. And food, as always, is a no go.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "05b5668a792f490a1eda8dc402f8125e", "text": "\"DirectGov has a good overview here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_4017814 and answers to your specific questions here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10013435 In short, you do need to declare the rental income on your tax return and will need to pay tax on it (and note that only the mortgage interest (not the full repayment) is deductible as an \"\"allowable expense\"\", see the full list of what is deductible here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome/DG_10014027 ).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "706cab9010b11714da53588d1d51bd40", "text": "Short answer: it's complicated. The UK govt pages on foreign income are probably your best starting point: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/LeavingOrComingIntoTheUK/DG_10027480 As you can see, it depends on your precise residence status here. (There is a tax treaty between the UK and the US so you wouldn't be double taxed on the income either way. But there might still be reporting obligations).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26934933debfc980c3627ccfc5be78e7", "text": "\"Worksheets/ Documentation: (From my experience filing my business deductions through several tax preparers.) Keep all your calculations, but only submit the calculations and worksheets requested by the tax form. Most travel deductions are just a category total. If the IRS wants more info, it will ask for it. Information from the book Home Business Tax Deductions (from Nolo) (2012): Traveling with kids: In chapter 9 (\"\"Leaving Town: Business Travel\"\"), in the section \"\"Taking People With You\"\", it specifically discusses your situation. Paraphrasing, it says that you can deduct the amount any eligible expenses would have cost you if you were traveling without your kids. So, you can deduct the cost the smaller hotel room that you and your wife would have normally rented if you were alone. How your side trips affect your business deductions: According to the book, since you spent 50% or more of your time on business activities while traveling in the U.S.: Deducting meals shared with your kids: You can deduct meals as either entertainment or travel expenses. I would recommend you buy one of Nolo's books on deductions, as it goes into much more detail than I do here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "626a2197689b19ff93c95f514d201984", "text": "With a question like this you should talk to a tax professional who knows about international tax and knows about both the UK and the country you will be working in. They will give you up to date advice on what can be an extremely complex question. However to get you started I'll tell you what I was told when I did this nearly twenty years ago. It's all about whether you are resident in the UK for tax purposes or not. If you are, you will pay UK tax. If not, you wont (assuming you are being paid outside the UK - check with your professional exactly what is involved). In those days you could be counted as 'non resident' if you spent a complete period of twelve months outside the UK. You can make occasional visits to the UK without invalidating that. Again, check exactly how much you are allowed to return while still being not resident. Usually you will have to pay tax in the country where you are resident, but check the rules there. With some skilful timing you may be able to be considered non-resident in bouth countries, at least for some of the time. Again, your tax professional will know. The bank account question - again get a professional. I don't think it's a problem, but you may have to establish that you are being paid in the foreign country. In general you are going to need an account in the country where you work, so if its a problem get paid there and transfer any money you need in the UK.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "358ca6cdfe9780ec08e4a2d93d91605b", "text": "My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5581a60e50161d4d3ba607cddf4e983e", "text": "Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home. That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on. Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses. The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue? The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25c3c0fedb487bda03a9b386cba5a700", "text": "As 'anonymous' already mentioned, I think the correct answer is to go see an accountant. That said, if you are already have to fill in a tax return anyway (ie, you're already a high rate taxpayer) then I don't see why it should be an issue if you just told HMRC of your additional profit via your tax return. I never was in the situation of being employed with a side business in the UK, only either/or, but my understanding is that registering as self employed is probably more suitable for someone who doesn't PAYE already. I might be wrong on this as I haven't lived in the UK for a couple of years but an accountant would know the answer. Of course in either case, make sure that you keep each an every scrap of paper to do with your side business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99cdc7e19168d7ce036cfcc197e78300", "text": "The key factors here are You will need to pay tax in the UK only if you live more than 183 days - that too in a tax year. Indian tax system will also classify you as a NR (Non-resident) if you live outside for more than 182 days in a tax year. In your case, your income will be in India and will stay in India. So there should not be any UK tax until you try and get that money to the UK. I will not go into outlining what if you want to go down that road since it does not apply. As for tax in India, You will need to pay tax since the source of income is Indian. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b590adfbf41f34aee714780ff043bb5", "text": "Some items are VAT Exempt or Reduced, but in short you will pay it on almost any all consumer goods. Assuming you are a visitor to the UK from a non-EU nation then Her Majesty will refund you with the appropriate paperwork", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7e451ff517411ed28490bc8763abde4", "text": "This is essentially a reimbursement of your expense. Since you can deduct the expense, the fact that the reimbursement is taxable doesn't affect you much. You deduct your home office expenses on your annual tax return using form 8829. See the IRS site for more details. If you're asking about the UK tax, there may be some other considerations, but from the US tax perspective it is (nearly) a wash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7dda4d298962e5676469e1351ccb15d", "text": "\"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance. You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5 cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering \"\"per diem rates\"\" in the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated, you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2 using code “L\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c11d1781a910fe53b160db6f0ac43cb5", "text": "The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5092af7fd472dc29e497ab8860e2097c", "text": "There are really only two options: invoiced, or paid. Everything else is not relevant from a tax or accounting point of view. Of course, if you're invoicing as you go along or collecting deposits once things are in your order books, then that amount of money is relevant. Working things out according to when you invoice is called working on an accrual basis. Working it out according to when you get paid is called working on a cash basis. Wikipedia explains the distinction, which also applies to your expenses: when did you incur them (get the bill) vs when you did you pay it. In some jurisdictions and for some kinds of companies, you can choose which of these two bases to work on (but no other basis.) There is advice on the UK government website about keeping your accounts. It includes a link to a PDF and on page 15 of that 100 page PDF it states: 2.14 The financial statements, with the exception of cash flow information, shall be prepared on the accruals basis of accounting. HENCE, ALL INCOME AND CHARGES RELATING TO THE FINANCIAL YEARTO WHICH THE ACCOUNTS RELATE MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR RECEIPT. That seems pretty clear to me. When you invoice. Period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "255ced4517b0b7d6b04e2db97cfaec4c", "text": "The answer on the Canadian Government's website is pretty clear: Most employees cannot claim employment expenses. You cannot deduct the cost of travel to and from work, or other expenses, such as most tools and clothing. However, that is most likely related to a personal vehicle. There is a deduction related to Public Transportation: You can claim cost of monthly public transit passes or passes of longer duration such as an annual pass for travel within Canada on public transit for 2016. The second sleeping residence is hard to justify as the individual is choosing to work in this town and this individual is choosing to spent the night there - it is not currently a work requirement. As always, please consult a certified tax professional in your country for any final determinations on personal (and corporate) tax laws and filings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3eb961fe4796f80757fdd694888379", "text": "IRS Publication 463 is a great resource to help you understand what you can and can't deduct. It's not a yes/no question, it depends on the exact company use, other use, and contemporaneous record keeping.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "90444e54339405ab045d9a427e75f038", "text": "You can look into getting a business credit card. When I had my Chase business credit card, I could add authorized users to the main account and set a spending limit on each card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15719a8b8ee5b0361f43e22b91f3d55b", "text": "\"Generally not. Since authorized user cards are the same account and the difference between the two (the original and the AU card) are minimal. Note, there's nothing technically stopping banks from offering this as a feature, two cards do have identifiers that indicate they're separate cards, but the banks concern for your needs stops at how much they can bleed from you, and \"\"helping you control your spending\"\" is not part of that.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7fa07862de504222737b3d46f2e2ed20", "text": "\"Unless you have a history of over-using credit (i.e. you've gotten yourself into debt trouble), then I think that the banker is giving you bad advice in telling you to get your own credit limit reduced. Having more credit available to you that is left unused will make your utilization ratio lower, which is generally better for your credit score, according to this article on CreditKarma.com. The \"\"sweet spot\"\" seems to be 1-20% utilization of your total credit. (But remember, this is only one factor in your credit score, and not even the biggest-- having a long history of on-time payments counts the most.) My own personal experience seems to bear this out. I have two major credit cards that I use. One card has a high credit limit (high for me anyway) and I use it for just about everything that I buy-- groceries, gas, durable goods, services, you name it. The other card has a limit that is about 1/3 of the first, and I use it for a few recurring bills and occasional purchases where they don't take the first card. I also have a couple of department store cards that I use rather infrequently (typically 1 purchase every 3 months or so). At the end of each month, when the respective statements post, each card has a balance that is 15% or less of the credit limit on that card. I pay off the entire balance on each card each month, and the cycle repeats. I have never been late on a payment, and my credit history for all of these cards goes back 10 years. My credit score is nearly as high as it can go. If having unused credit were a detriment, I would expect my score to be much lower. So, no, having \"\"too much credit available\"\" is not going to hurt you, unless you are not using it at all, or are tempted to abuse it (use too much). The key is to use common sense. Have a small number of cards, keep them active, spend within your means so you can pay off the balance in full after the statement posts, and never be late on your payments. That's all it takes to have good credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cca679a295a5864a66e8217c08eff7b", "text": "\"I think they gave you the answer: You haven't previously shown that you can run that particular card up to (near) its existing maximum and then pay it off, so they don't have a strong indication that you can handle that large an unsecured loan. Generally, requests to have the limits raised when there isn't evidence that the customer is finding the current limit inconvenient are going to be considered suspicious. Remember, a great credit rating does not require that they consider you a good risk -- it's just one of the things they consider. Why do you need the limit raised? Have you tried contacting the bank's credit department directly and discussing what they will or won't let you do? Re paying off the card every month: Remember, they do get a processing fee from the vendor. They'd prefer that we paid interest (I'm told the term of art for those of us who don't is \"\"deadbeats\"\"), but they certainly don't lose money when we don't. And they'd generally rather have us be loyal customers who MIGHT someday pay interest, and who are bringing in fees, than have us go elsewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40f9e55d3cf2caa66995bade903e3711", "text": "Contrary to what many people think, credit card companies pass nearly all fraud costs via purchased goods onto the merchant who sells them. As a result, they stand a very high chance of getting the money from a fraudulent purchase of a specific purchased item back, as they just chargeback the merchant who has to stomach the cost. This is not the case for cash transactions obviously, where as soon as the money leaves the ATM fraudulently it is as good as gone. As a result, the risk profile of the two types of transaction is wildly different, and the credit limits of each reflect this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "652bfcc11a6d2b4f91435b4c8ab97692", "text": "Try to get a second card in your business' name, with a separate card number (like you would get one for a spouse). They may or may not allow that free (you wouldn't want to pay a second fee), and it might be only possible with the second card bearing the same number, which makes it useless. But it is worth a try.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "870698d1faf244c51861b34a51f37bd5", "text": "\"As anecdotal experience, we have a credit account in my name as offered by bank's marketing before I could qualify by common rules for newcomers (I have an account there for years so they knew my history and reliability dynamics I guess), and my wife is subscribed as a secondary user to the same credit account with a separate card. So we share the same limits (e.g. max month usage/overdraft) and benefits (bank's discounts and bonuses when usage passes certain thresholds - and it's easier to gain these points together than alone) so in the end maintenance of the card costs zero or close to that on most months, while the card is in a program to get discounts from hundreds of shops and even offers a free or discounted airport lounge access in some places :) But the bonus program is just that - benefits come and go as global economics changes; e.g. we had free car assistance available for a couple of years but it is gone since last tariff update. Generally it is beneficial for us to do all transactions including rent etc. via these two credit cards to the same account, and then recharge its overdraft as salaries come in - we have an \"\"up to 50 days\"\" cooloff period (till 20th of next calendar month) with no penalties on having taken the loans - but if we ever did overstretch that, then tens of yearly percents would kick in. Using the card(s) for daily ops, there is a play on building up the credit history as well: while we don't really need the loans to get from month to month, it helps build an image in the face of credit organizations, which can help secure e.g. favorable mortgage rates (and other contract conditions) which are out of pocket money range :) I'd say it is not only a \"\"we against the system\"\" sort of game though, as it sort of trains our own financial discipline - every month we have (a chance) to go over our spendings to see what we did, and so we more regularly think about it in the end - so the bank probably benefits from dealing with more-educated less-random customers when it comes to the bigger loans. Regarding internet, we tend to trust more to a debit card which we populate with pocket money sufficient for upcoming or already placed (blocked) transactions. After all, a malicious shop can not sip off thousands of credit money - but only as much as you've pre-allocated there on debit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6eeebb604046b2dd9274a55dbadbaf4f", "text": "Your credit score is definitely affected by the age of your credit accounts, so if you frequently close one card and open another new one, you're adversely affecting the overall average age of accounts. This is something to consider and whether it is worth what you're trying to achieve. Sometimes, if you're a good customer and are insistent enough, you can simply call your credit card company and use the threat of closing your account in favor of another card that offers something attractive to get your current bank to sweeten its incentives to keep your business. I know many people who've done this with real success, and they spare themselves the hassle of obtaining a new card and suffering the short term consequences on their credit report. This might be an avenue worth trying before you just close the account and move on. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9c3a008d3b59f6749d8538c2abda64", "text": "Apparently it is up to the credit card company on how they want to report your available balance. Another disadvantage to the no-limit credit card may not be apparent to most people, but it is something noted by organizations like The Motley Fool, which is expert in many issues of finance and investment. Part of your credit score, about 30%, considers the amount of money you have borrowed, and the limit on your present credit cards. A no-limit credit card company may report your limit as $0 if you have not used the card, or they may report a maximum limit available to you. They may not, nor are they obligated, to report times when you put tons of expenses on a credit card and then paid them off. While some companies will report your timely payments and paid off amounts, others simply report an extremely low limit. For instance if you spent $100 US Dollars (USD), your limit might be considered $100 USD, or it may merely be reported as zero. You’ll need to check with a credit card company on how they report payments and limits on a no-limit credit card before you obtain one. Some people who are scrupulous are paying off their cards at the end of each month suffer major losses to their credit score, without even realizing it, if their spending ability is rated at zero, or their payments don’t count toward showing credit worthiness. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "507f0484eeed35cce069afeba03b1ac3", "text": "Problems with your plan (in no particular order) there is a limit, once they have decided that you have enough credit they won't offer any more. If the economy changes (like it did in 2008) they can reduce the limit on existing accounts. If you don't use them, they may decide to close them. Using existing cards will encourage the bank to increase the limit on that card. opening cards can make some lenders nervous. Having a new card close to when you are applying for a mortgage or a car loan can make them less likely to lend you the max. You have to decide: Are you trying to buildup your credit limit? or your credit score?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95d09eb0abac324be064402b319b207c", "text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e2725a626169f8bb0452fe6787d91dd", "text": "The credit limit is not going to be the problem; the daily spending limit is more likely be tripped first. I'm not a lawyer but if you are not responsible for the credit card details being leaked it is very unlikely that the bank will be able to charge you for fraudulent spending on the card. The important thing is to notify the bank as soon as possible once you realize there is a problem and if practical keep evidence of that notification, it will then be the banks problem to fix. From my understanding Singapore has relatively good consumer protection and it is unlikely the bank will get very far even if they try to charge you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4da24f321fb782c3eadaf9e189c1c90", "text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.", "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": "7bfa0d3c95302ce39cc3ed6fcf02b429", "text": "Hits to your credit rating for canceling one of the newer cards will be a small hit for a few months. You do have some options. I also believe that a person with good credit should have multiple cards: I like having a cash back card for the majority of our transactions. Unfortunately that card isn't accepted everywhere, so I have two other cards with broad market coverage to make sure we always have an option if the vendor doesn't take the main card. Also having multiple cards makes sure that if there is an issue with one card you are never caught without a card. One time the main card was rejected by a gas station because my wife just used the same account to buy gas across town. When we got home their was a fraud alert message on our phone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "342a3b88df4846cd1e17381d27005525", "text": "\"A few years ago I had a US bank credit card that was serviced (all support, website, transaction issues) handled by FIA Card Services (part of Bank of America). I could create one-use credit card numbers, or time-limited (for example, 3 months) numbers. I could also create (\"\"permanent)) extra card numbers. All of these could have a max charge value (IIRC, even a fixed value), so you could have a separate card number, with a limit, just for a subscription service or gym membership. The Bank issuing the card cancelled the entire card offering, so I lost these features. Maybe FIA still provides these features on cards they service. As a note to pjc50 (can't comment in this SE yet), Japan has had contactless cards for >10 years, but during use they tend to place them in a special tray (with the sensor underneath) during the transaction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8edec56f6e8886c6593c04371274b994", "text": "Each ATM, the machine, belongs to one or more networks. Those networks work with multiple types of cards. Each card belongs to one or more networks. The overlap of the networks the machine belongs to, and the card belongs to determines if the card works and what fees and limits apply. In general if the credit card belongs to one of the major networks (VISA, Master Card, American Express and Discover) you shouldn't have a problem finding a ATM that will give you a cash advance, or even a cash advance without an ATM Fee. Each credit card network should have a web interface to show you where the ATMs are that will work with the card. If it is a store credit card it still might belong to one of the major networks. If the bank that issues the card is local you can probably get a cash advance at the bank branch. Use the website to see if the ATM/Branch locations are convenient for you. The actual limits are a function of the card type, and the credit limit that you have been approved for. In my experience the maximum amount of cash advance outstanding is half the credit limit, but you need to check with your card. Keep in mind unless you have a special offer from the credit card company expect that there will be a fee charged by the credit card company for the cash advance, this is in addition to a fee charged by the ATM. Also remember that interest starts to accumulate on day one of the cash advance. It isn't like a regular purchase that might not be charged interest until the cycle closes and the payment is due. The documentation from the credit card company will describe all the fees and limits.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6e749d75baf01102ec18f7913553b5f3", "text": "My advice is that if you've got the money now to pay off your student loans, do so. You've saved up all of that money in one year's time. If you pay it off now, you'll eliminate all of those monthly payments, you'll be done paying interest, and you should be able to save even more toward your business over the next year. Over the next year, you can get started on your business part time, while still working full time to pile up cash toward your business. Neither you nor your business will be paying interest on anything, and you'll start out in a very strong position. The interest on your student loans might be tax deductible, depending on your situation. However, this doesn't really matter a whole lot, in my opinion. You've got about $22k in debt, and the interest will cost you roughly $1k over the next year. Why pay $1k to the bank to gain maybe $250 in tax savings? Starting a business is stressful. There will be good times and bad. How long will it take you to pay off your debt at $250 a month? 5 or 6 years, probably. By eliminating the debt now, you'll be able to save up capital for your business even faster. And when you experience some slow times in your business, your monthly expenses will be less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4b02dc1399ac958d79cd4f2b20e5a4c", "text": "Considering I'm in a nearly identical situation, I'll speak to my personal strategy and maybe there's some value for you as well. You have ~$22k in loans, which you say you could pay off today. So, what I read is that you're sitting there with a $22k investment and want to know which investment to make: pay down debt, invest in yourself/start up, or some variation between those options. Any investor worth his salt will ask a couple of questions: what is my risk, and what is my gain? Paying off your student loans offers no financial risk at the cost of opportunity risk, and gains you returns of 3.4%, 6.8%, 3.4%, 4.5%, and 6.8%. Those percentage gains are guaranteed and the opportunity risk is unknown. Investing in a startup is inherently risky, with the potential for big payoffs. But with this investment, you are accepting a lot of risk for potentially some gain (it could be the next Apple, it could also fail). So, with your situation (like mine), I'd say it's best to accept the easy investment for now and fully vet out your tech start up idea in the meantime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95a81e325d968cc68b3e4865abd6482b", "text": "Starting up a company is fun, stressful, and exciting. It's also often a lot harder than you expect. Income, revenue, and cash flow are big concerns, and you need to be able to eat while you're hunting down your first paying customers. Don't pay off all the debt if that will leave you without any money for living expenses. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Pay off the high-interest loans first, and continue to make payments on the lower-interest loans while you start up. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "29922615ca4e1e72732efd362bcf2a41", "text": "\"I don't have enough reputation in this community to comment yet, so this \"\"answer\"\" is really just a minor furtherance of JoeTaxpayer's comment... THe only thing I might add to this great answer - make all minimum payments, and send all extra available cash to the highest interest card. If OP will pay in full after 6 month, this may make little difference, but it will be a few dollars in his pocket instead of the bank. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Dec 2 at 17:42 ...on Ben Miller's excellent answer. Once you have taken JoeTaxpayer's advice and ordered your cards by interest rate and have paid off the highest interest card first, take that same payment and add it to your next-highest card's minimum payment. Once THAT is payed off, take the combined amounts that you were paying to cards one and two and apply it all to card three along with its minimum payment. You see where this is going. By aggregating your payments thusly, each card will get paid off successively more quickly than the previous one, without increasing your overall payments to the cards, and you are retiring the highest-interest debt first. Your last card will then be paid off in record time, because you have combined all of the payments for cards 1-4. One other amplification: Since we don't know which account has which interest rate, it may be more advantageous to order them by balance, with the smallest first. That way you retire the first card quickly, which gives you a sense of accomplishment, and by the time you reach your highest balance card, you have snowballed all of your payments and are now throwing boulders instead of pebbles at it. You'll have to do that math to see which method has the most benefit. Then roll it all into the car payment. Then roll it into your student debt. Etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109e10e02e4805f60b4c8bff30f5dee2", "text": "Finish off the student loans. If your absolute goal is saving as much as you possibly can for retirement, then you of course will be best off by maxing your IRA contribution every year. However, student loans are just another thing hanging over you, and nothing feels better than getting rid of a large debt. Pay them off, take yourself out to a nice dinner to celebrate, and tuck away what you have left over in your IRA. Paying off student loans is a great accomplishment - celebrate it! The difference long-term will be negligible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0b002019998dadfd61f5d5231a3e07", "text": "Excellent question and it is a debate that is often raised. Mathematically you are probably best off using option #1. Any money that is above and beyond minimum payments earns a pretty high interest rate, about 6.82% in the form of saved interest payments. The problem is you are likely to get discouraged. Personal finance is a lot about behavior, and after working at this for a year, and still having 5 loans, albeit a lower balance, might take a bit of fight out of you. Paying off such a large balance, in a reasonable time, will take a lot of fight. With the debt snowball, you pay the minimum to the student loan, save in an outside account, and when it is large enough, you execute option #2. So a year from now you might only have three loans instead of five. If you behaved exactly the same your balance would be higher after that year then using the previous method. However often one does not behave the same. Because the goals are shorter and more attainable it is easier to delay some gratification. The 8 dollars you are saving in your weekly gas budget, because of low prices, is meaningful when saving for a 4K goal, where it is meaningless when looking at it as a 74K goal. With the 4K goal you are more apt to put that money in your savings, where the 74K goal you might spend it on a latte. For me, the debt snowball worked really well. With either option make sure that excess payments actually go to a reduction in principle not a prepayment of interest. Given this you may be left with no option. For example if method #1 you only prepay interest, you are forced to use option #2.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d7a72fc20efe28acab0c88c7cfe516f", "text": "You are making close to 200 K a year which is great. The aggressive payments on loans takes out around 30K which is good. The fact that you are not able to save is bad. Rather than pushing off your savings to later, scale down the lifestyle and push the upgrade to lifestyle for later", "title": "" }, { "docid": "152b637940a0aa25faccd23d12b3fb4e", "text": "\"Place your savings into safe interest-bearing accounts. Take out the loans. Keep constant track of your net worth. Having 100,000$ and 80,000$ in interest free debt is better than having 20,000$. You can always convert money + debt into less money and less debt, but you cannot always convert less money and less debt into more money and more debt. Now, there are risks; that is why you want an interest-bearing account to place your savings in to offset the debt. This minimizes the risk. It also reduces the return. It is arguable that you should be at your most financially risky at a young age. I'd argue that your future earnings are your by far largest asset at this point, and as a high school student going into college those future earnings have extremely high variability. Your financial situation is extremely unpredictable; being conservative about your high-leverage student-loan + education investments is probably justified. The fact you can manage arbitrage here means you should; and if you are careful, you can eliminate risk and get almost risk-free profit from the maneuver. If your money is in less than perfectly safe accounts, you are now doing leveraged investing and magnifying the risk and return of said investments. If your money must be spent on college or you'll be financially punished, then you may want to consider pulling it out before the last possible legal point just in case something goes wrong. Apparently 529 plans may not treat \"\"paying off student loans\"\" as a valid way to spend the money. You may need to talk to a lawyer or accountant about the legality of using these plans to pay off student loans, and the tax/penalties involved.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecd7676456c99f54acf9236555651deb", "text": "Its almost always better to pay off loans sooner rather than later. Being debt free is amazingly liberating. However, in your case, I'd be reluctant to make significant headway on a loan repayment program. Here's why: The best investment you can make, right now, is in yourself. Completing your education should be the top priority. The next would be to meet the requirements of a job after received after school is complete. So what I would do is estimate the amount of money it would take to complete school. Add to that an estimate of an amount to move to a new city and setup a household. That amount should be held in reserve. Anything above that can used to pay down loans. Once you complete school and get settled into a job, you can then take that money and also throw it at your loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "493fd71559a53d5e00e75781492a9850", "text": "Keep 3-6 months (or more if you need to, for me the number is 9 months) worth of expenses in an emergency fund. Put the rest against the student loan. The length of time depends on your situation. I have family, and work in IT. Changing jobs takes me longer, because ... reasons. Having less than 6-9 months of buffer means that I have to rush and possibly take a position that is not a good fit, or get behind on payments. So, set aside your emergency fund, add to it if you need to. Once it is fully funded, take the money you were using to fund the emergency fund and budget that to clearing student loans. Also, don't start new credit cards, and be sure to never carry a balance on them. I know it seems like a lot, but keep in mind that yours is small, and you'll likely be able to knock it out in a very short time. Edit (after OP listed expenses): Taking into account the expenses you listed, it looks like you have about 2000 per month in expenses (if you're in emergency fund mode, luxuries can wait, and you can tighten the belt on food, so go with the lower end of your estimate.) Lets say you have 600 a month to work with. My suggestion would be bring savings up to $6000. That will take you two months. Then pay 850 a month to student loans. You'll be paid off in a year, and still have 6000 for emergencies. Once you're done, you will have 850 a month to save and invest. With patience, persistence and care, you can start a nest egg that will allow you to remain financially independent. Search around for FIRE (financial independence, retire early) and other strategies for retirement savings and investing. Be sure to save for retirement. The worst inheritance to leave your loved ones would be to become financially dependent upon them in your later years. And watch out for credit, it's a trap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934d84cd728be42ec4f3f01466e993c3", "text": "Please direct personal finance questions to /r/personalfinance However, my opinion is that you are unlikely to earn more than 7% annualized returns from any combination of asset offerings in your 401k over the next several years; therefore, you should pay off your student loans first. I am ignoring tax consequences, but /r/personalfinance may be able to provide a more quantitative answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ee79f89d2eccdf0d137f986fd276ece", "text": "It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to save up and wait to make a payment on any of these loans. Any dollar you pay today works better than saving it and waiting months to pay it, no matter which loan it will be applied to. Since your lender won't let you choose which loan your payment is being applied to, don't worry about it. Just make as big a payment as you can each month, and try to get the whole thing out of your life as soon as possible. The result of this will be that the smaller balance loans will be paid off first, and the bigger balance loans later. It is unfortunate that the higher interest rate loans will be paid later, but it sounds like you don't have a choice, so it is not worth worrying about. Instead of thinking of it as 5 loans of different amounts, think of it as one loan with a balance of $74,000, and make payments as quickly and as often as possible. For example, let's say that you have $1000 a month extra to throw at the loans. You would be better off paying $1000 each month than waiting until you have $4000 in the bank and paying it all at once toward one loan. How the lender divides up your payment is less significant than when the lender gets the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b9b57c631289fcd2c862379e592700e", "text": "Basically you have 4 options: Use your cash to pay off the student loans. Put your cash in an interest-bearing savings account. Invest your cash, for example in the stock market. Spend your cash on fun stuff you want right now. The more you can avoid #4 the better it will be for you in the long term. But you're apparently wise enough that that wasn't included as an option in your question. To decide between 1, 2, and 3, the key questions are: What interest are you paying on the loan versus what return could you get on savings or investment? How much risk are you willing to take? How much cash do you need to keep on hand for unexpected expenses? What are the tax implications? Basically, if you are paying 2% interest on a loan, and you can get 3% interest on a savings account, then it makes sense to put the cash in a savings account rather than pay off the loan. You'll make more on the interest from the savings account than you'll pay on interest on the loan. If the best return you can get on a savings account is less than 2%, then you are better off to pay off the loan. However, you probably want to keep some cash reserve in case your car breaks down or you have a sudden large medical bill, etc. How much cash you keep depends on your lifestyle and how much risk you are comfortable with. I don't know what country you live in. At least here in the U.S., a savings account is extremely safe: even the bank goes bankrupt your money should be insured. You can probably get a much better return on your money by investing in the stock market, but then your returns are not guaranteed. You may even lose money. Personally I don't have a savings account. I put all my savings into fairly safe stocks, because savings accounts around here tend to pay about 1%, which is hardly worth even bothering. You also should consider tax implications. If you're a new grad maybe your income is low enough that your tax rates are low and this is a minor factor. But if you are in, say, a 25% marginal tax bracket, then the effective interest rate on the student loan would be more like 1.5%. That is, if you pay $20 in interest, the government will then take 25% of that off your taxes, so it's the equivalent of paying $15 in interest. Similarly a place to put your money that gives non-taxable interest -- like municipal bonds -- gives a better real rate of return than something with the same nominal rate but where the interest is taxable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "080056d630bff8fef41c2b47594e2d9a", "text": "I'd be tempted to pay off the 35k in student loans immediately, but if you have to owe money, it's hard to beat zero percent. So I don't think I would pay it all off. Maybe cut it in half to make it a more comfortable payment. Currently, you are looking at $6K a year to pay them off, which is about 20% of your income. Cut that in half and you will sleep better! Definitely pay off the medical and credit cards. You're probably paying 20% on that. Clean it up. If you need a car, buy yourself a car. You have no savings, so I would put the rest in some kind of money market savings account. You are at an age where many people go through frequent changes. Maybe you get your own place, and you'll need to furnish it. Maybe you go back to school. Maybe you get married or have kids. Maybe you take a year off and backpack through Europe or Asia. You have a nice little windfall that puts you in a nice position to enjoy being young, so I would not lock it up into a 401k or other long term situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6236c533a709b202a826720071e1f5a7", "text": "\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f4660e81b6cac0d44cedec2044272b9", "text": "My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dd9d2457e4a336bbf0ff70a00cdd6f6", "text": "Should I use the profit to pay down student loans or just roll it into my next house in order to have a lower mortgage amount? Calculate the amount of interest in each scenario, where the two scenarios are: Use extra cash to pay down student loans, take out a full mortgage. Use extra cash to make a big down payment on the next house, keep paying down student loans at normal rate. In both scenarios the student loan rate will stay the same. However in the second scenario you may get a lower interest rate from making a larger down payment. So then calculate the total interest resulting from each scenario: student loan rateXremaining student loan balance=student loan interest new mortgage rateXnew mortgage balance=mortgage interest scenario 1 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest student loan rateXstudent loan balance = student loan interest new mortgage rate with large down paymentXnew mortgage balance after large down payment = mortgage interest scenario 2 interest = student loan interest+mortgage interest Whichever scenario's interest is lower will save money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bda4d0109e8e1b2b372413376670038", "text": "Try to cash flow as much as you can. You can work and go to school, if you replace playing beer pong with a job you'll be in a lot better off at graduation, grade wise and debt wise. Make a budget, for each month and for each semester, plan cut cost accordingly. Used books, sometimes even the next to recent version. Read this book for more info Debt-Free U: How I Paid for an Outstanding College Education Without Loans, Scholarships, or Mooching off My Parents", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8c45ec28837ec110e437b539ed937129", "text": "\"I'm going to go with \"\"ridiculous notion.\"\" :) The vast majority of businesses are legitimate, run by honest people trying to earn a living for themselves and their employees. These days, almost all of them accept credit cards. Crooked businesses are a very small minority. When a bad business over charges you, you dispute the charge, and you get your money back. But that's not all that happens. The bad merchant pays penalties for this, and if it happens more than a couple of times, the merchant loses their merchant account with their bank, which means that they lose their ability to accept credit card payments anymore. A crooked business is not able to rob people via credit card for very long at all. A whitelist would certainly not be able to include every legitimate business. And a blacklist would never be able to be kept up-to-date, as bad businesses come and go continuously; as soon as a business was added to the blacklist, they would lose their merchant account and would no longer need to be on the list. What you are describing is very rare. My brother once had a bad experience with a tech support company where they were repeatedly charging him for a service they never performed. But a credit card chargeback took care of it. If that company made a habit of that, I'm sure that they got in trouble with their bank. Instead, the most common credit card fraud happens when crooks use your credit card at perfectly legitimate businesses. But your whitelist/blacklist wouldn't help you with that at all.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d855a6639f5e5496aa280c5cbeca1f5a", "text": "I don't understand why businesses that supposedly offer a legitimate product decide to host 3rd party code. Is their actual product so worthless that they need the extra few cents from ad revenue? And there are open source analytic packages that tell you how many times people click on things on your web page and how they were referred. I don't see the reason behind relying on other packages unless you really need to compare yourselves to the competition-- which probably doesn't come up in boardroom meetings every day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cefa73cfa45f438cf139281ac832089", "text": "No. Brokers and HFT are two different entities, mostly. No HFT shops have prior information about a client order. PM me if you want to discuss more in detail. Getting beyond the scope of this post.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdfc7642df93ade5220c28e1d09e3f68", "text": "This kind of thing is right up my ally. I am based in Australia so suggestions will be Australian based. I was looking at starting up a private consultancy. Basically use neto as your ERM and online website. link in to xero for accounts. Netos predictive inventory module tells you when to restock on raw materials.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88de644e447bf7a91d1e7d0a69d2ff47", "text": "Embrace the web. Let folks search for info while they're in your store. make the Salesmen do it. give your customer all the info they need to pull the trigger and buy the product. Just say we'll match Amazon or Newegg on this and the sale's a lock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21fe332df485ef839ba1dfa57f47ed91", "text": "Have you considered a service that allows you to generate credit card numbers on the fly? DoNotTrackMe allows you to generate a CC number on the fly, for a specific amount. If the vendor tries to charge more, it will fail. If it gets stolen, it's useless. I don't know the specific fees off hand, but they have an annual fee for the feature. Still, for the protection, doesn't seem like a bad way to go. Note: I have no affiliation with DNTM, I'm just a very happy user of their email protection products. The Masked Cards faq is here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ff0d2b58a0072ba0922d31010282b2d", "text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3387cda63d8029bd1e06eacb936a17bf", "text": "The are legit, I have been a member for more than 15 years. I have used there services many many many times. I have never sold any, I have only been a customer. The friend who sold me the service did very well for himself selling and recruiting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69244fe41231d70ad9024bb0c7344d57", "text": "It sounds like the items shipped directly from the vendor need to be recorded into your system when the order is confirmed, that way cost of goods sold and revenue don't get lost. You'll have a record of re-orders and cancels and other such things too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c682ef5283bb51dbcdf86854fba99e8", "text": "Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b316b9df9a23a3168f27e058368574f", "text": "Whether or not I trust them depends entirely on the personal finance application. In the cases of Mint and Quicken, I would trust both. Always make sure to do plenty of research before submitting any personal information to any source.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94676d16248b873816005083aa338782", "text": "Are you looking for a company that can help you get more website visitors? If yes, then get in touch with White Digital (NE) Ltd! This company offers search engine optimisation services that can help business websites attract potential customers. Such services include keyword and competitor research, full website SEO health check, Google set-up and directory citations, and so much more! Visit White Digital (NE) Ltd’s website, https://white.digital, for more information on web design and development services.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "356d0adb9f20c3d726d205d4fb67286f", "text": "The closest thing to purchasing prospects we did was buy an email list that contained the names of several thousand people who fit our profile. Personally, I am not in favor of doing that. The companies you are buying from really don't understand what you want and you end up getting a hodge podge of information that never really gets you anywhere. Outside of that I am sure there are other services that provide prospecting, but the best lists are always developed internally. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee3f659b49268480e5c6e2a7b63b6b66", "text": "Are you dropshipping (I'll have to tune my answer a bit if so)? Suggest you're probably looking for a supply chain consultant. As you've found, ecomm is a bit of a loaded term and will get you the wrong kinds of folks. Sounds like in your case, you're looking for more classical-style supply chain help and e-commerce just happens to be the vehicle with which the consumers place orders - though correct me if I'm off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "035e03018aa1d2da9746f0c75cd7ad7f", "text": "Seems like it's more dependent on who you want to be your supplier. The times I've been involved in requesting this, each company had its own application form. They usually need proof of business activity, which gets back to SpecKK's answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9ca73093da2b020403e5db113fab51c", "text": "No. At least not in my case. Without divulging too much information. I don't tell any of my distributors how to sell my company's products our engage their customer base, but due to the nature of my business, I am frequently called on for product selection, marketing, quality, etc. Distributors often utilize their account reps and managers to help them push products on their customer base. The only way this could be seen as truthful, in my opion, is direct retail distribution. Because how are you going to track the product after it has been purchased by a consumer.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7d3077586f1ca10a37851e7b9c4f23a8", "text": "\"It looks like the HST will be in effect in Ontario on July 1st, 2010. As to whether it will replace GST with HST for all services, it looks like some sectors may get special treatment: Ontario may exempt mutual funds from HST (National Post). But it doesn't look final yet. However, I would suggest that most service-based businesses in Ontario need to prepare to start charging 13% HST instead of 5% GST. It will be the law. On the \"\"goods\"\" side of the new harmonized tax, it looks like certain goods will still be exempt from the provincial portion. Here's a quote from the Ontario Budget 2009 News Release: \"\"Books, diapers, children's clothing and footwear, children's car seats and car booster seats, and feminine hygiene products would be exempt from the provincial portion of the single sales tax.\"\" Here's some additional information on the introduction of the HST, from the province: General Transitional Rules for Ontario HST. And finally, another interesting article from the Ottawa Business Journal: Preparing For Ontario Sales Tax Harmonization – It's Not Too Early UPDATE: I just received an insert from Canada Revenue Agency included with my quarterly GST statement. Titled \"\"Harmonization of the Sales Tax in Ontario and British Columbia\"\", it contains a section titled \"\"What this means for you\"\" (as in, you the business owner). Here's an excerpt: [...] All Ontario and B.C. registrants would need to update their accounting and point-of-sale systems to accomodate the change in rate and new point-of-sale rebates for the implementation date of July 1, 2010. The harmonization of the sales tax in Ontario and B.C. may affect the filing requirements of registrants outside of these two provinces. Registrants will report their HST according to their current GST filing frequency. As a result of the harmonization, there will be changes to the rebates for housing and public service bodies. More information will be released as it becomes available. Visit the CRA web site often, at www.cra.gc.ca/harmonization, for the most up-to-date information on the harmonization of the sales tax and how it may affect you. [...] Last, I found some very detailed information on the HST here: NOTICE247 - Harmonized Sales Tax for Ontario and British Columbia - Questions and Answers on General Transitional Rules for Personal Property and Services. Chances are anything you want to know is in there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e58a8128222084751b0288d74167d85e", "text": "In general you must charge HST on and after July 1, 2010. However, in the case of delivered sales, you must charge HST if the transfer of goods will happen on or after July 1,2010. Example: A person comes into my hypothetical store on June 29, 2010 and buys a couch. They opt to have it delivered by my truck on July 2, 2010. I should charge HST on this purchase, not GST/PST. References:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ebe417a11689afa1585e43c14ceded", "text": "(community wiki) Ontario special HST sales tax transition rebate cheques: When and how much? What will happen to quarterly GST cheques when HST starts in Ontario? Ontario HST rebate: When would I qualify? Ontario gas prices & HST: What will happen to prices at the pump on July 1, 2010? How will Ontario’s HST apply to books / textbooks, which were PST exempt before? How can I minimize the impact of the HST? How does the HST affect a condominium purchase? Will I need to pay HST on condo maintenance fees? My Ontario small business collects only PST (beneath GST threshold). How will HST affect me?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ce25b1830452e713b8ff2b84a9d71f11", "text": "\"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d031287980a46fd870886fd6610e129", "text": "Yes. You must register for GST as well, if you will be making over the threshold (currently $60,000). That's probably a bonus for you, as your home office expenses will mostly include GST, but your income will most likely be zero-rated. Check with an accountant or with the IRD directly. Just be certain to put aside enough money from each payment to cover income tax, GST and ACC. You will get a very large bill in your second year of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2c9a9969e6b2773320f3dfe7362f70a", "text": "You actually don't need an accountant. They'll be expensive and at this early a stage unnecessary - what you need is a good bookkeeper who can keep track of what comes in and what goes out. You'll need that to know if you're making money or not and to show the government at the end of the year. Get a copy of QuickBooks and pick up Bookkeeping for Dummies to at least get a sense for what's going on. Have you registered as a sole proprietorship? Make sure you have a vendor's permit so you can legally sell your services in Ontario. You may need to collect HST, in which case you'll need to register for an HST # and submit it on a quarterly basis. Whatever you do, don't fuck with the government - they can freeze your bank accounts to get money they're owed. You need to keep money on hand to pay for any taxes you might owe on the business, ESPECIALLY if it's a sole proprietorship where you'll be tempted to treat profit as income. You don't want to end up with nothing in the bank at the end of the year and $40k owing to the CRA. Get a separate bank account - don't mix personal and business, it's messy. Expense everything you reasonably can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad766ebd8bb78cde5a30f7e50124700c", "text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/talkbusiness] [Starting a restaurant in Toronto (Canada)](https://np.reddit.com/r/talkbusiness/comments/789f5l/starting_a_restaurant_in_toronto_canada/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1be9d7231a61302958e09ca27c1c4fe", "text": "The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "481b8423ba7e31615b1775bafe7d3029", "text": "I looked at this a little more closely but the answer Victor provided is essentially correct. The key to look at in the google finance graph is the red labled SMA(###d) would indicate the period units are d=days. If you change the time axis of the graph it will shift to SMA(###m) for period in minutes or SMA(###w) for period in weeks. Hope this clears things up!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de65a195799a90cbf017660532c71024", "text": "Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes these principles as applied to the enumerated states: STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity: California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact. Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act. Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York effectively follows this provision of the Act. Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e4e81a9dd457ff0c047054f2d09ff6a", "text": "\"FWIW, I've got a printed Amazon.ca invoice that was included in a shipment of books that I received in July, 2013. In the right-side side panel, at the bottom and in fine print, it reads: Amazon.com.ca, Inc. 410 Terry Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109-5210 GST Registration Number/No enregistrement TPS 85730 5932 RT0001 [etc.] If I view the same order online at Amazon.ca, the on-screen version does not have that detail. Interestingly, at the bottom of the online invoice page it says: \"\"Please note: This is not a VAT invoice.\"\" That probably should've said \"\"GST/HST\"\", for Canada, and not \"\"VAT\"\", which is presumably for the United Kingdom. So, it would appear that Amazon may only print their GST/HST details on the shipped invoice printout. Which made me wonder: Did you purchase something that was fulfilled electronically, i.e. no physical shipment to you? e.g. a Kindle book, an app, or a service like Cloud Drive? If no physical invoice shipped means one doesn't get the required GST details, then there's still a Canadian tax requirement Amazon isn't fulfilling on such invoices, though not as broad an issue as you suspected. On the other hand, if you did get a physical invoice [and your comment confirmed you did], then what you were seeking was most likely printed on that version, just as mine was. At the moment, I'm not sure why Amazon wouldn't also include the GST number on electronic versions of invoices (whether received by email, or viewed on the web site) but if I find out more, I'll update my answer later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "701e8af5fd8da73baf91d54053149cb0", "text": "In Ontario, common law marriage requires 3 years of cohabitation, and doesn't give rights to property (which remains separate). I'd say in your situation you can still file as single, but I'd suggest asking your tax accountant to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caff17a8e58f867e2b8edd998ab5b806", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/with-economy-almost-home-poloz-treads-carefully-on-rate-path) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The Canadian economy is almost home, according to the nation's central bank, but Stephen Poloz is trying to make sure the roof doesn't cave in. > The economy is in a "Sweet spot" where it "Could be capable of generating more non-inflationary growth than we are assuming," Poloz said in a press conference following the rate decision. > Excess capacity in the labor market suggests little risk of inflation overheating in the near term, said Poloz, who highlighted involuntary part-time workers, subdued work force participation among youths, lower than expected hours worked and softness in wage growth as signs the economy has further room for improvement. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78t6fn/with_economy_almost_home_poloz_is_treading/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~235204 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*: **growth**^#1 **bank**^#2 **rate**^#3 **economy**^#4 **expects**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f494c007a256f5583640314dcdc4ac32", "text": "It has basically been kicked out of every Canadian city for being illegal while the cities make new regulations for them. Now they have the new regulations and it's pretty decent. They were definitely illegal though (injunctions issued and everything), but now operate within the laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29aa93d3c3af81a6236d2e1905ada5a1", "text": "This site has the best information I could find, other than a Bloomberg terminal: Quantumonline.com QUANTUMONLINE.COM SECURITY DESCRIPTION: SCANA Corp., 2009 Series A, 7.70% Enhanced Junior Subordinated Notes, issued in $25 denominations, redeemable at the issuer's option on or after 1/30/2015 at $25 per share plus accrued and unpaid interest, and maturing 1/30/2065 which may be extended to 1/30/2080. Interest distributions of 7.70% ($1.925) per annum are paid quarterly on 1/30, 4/30, 7/30 & 10/30 to holders of record on the record date which is the business day prior to the payment date (NOTE: the ex-dividend date is at least 2 business days prior to the record date). Distributions paid by these debt securities are interest and as such are NOT eligible for the preferential 15% to 20% tax rate on dividends and are also NOT eligible for the dividend received deduction for corporate holders. Units are expected to trade flat, which means accrued interest will be reflected in the trading price and the purchasers will not pay and the sellers will not receive any accrued and unpaid interest. The Notes are unsecured and subordinated obligations of the company and will rank equally with all existing and future unsecured and subordinated indebtedness of the company. See the IPO prospectus for further information on the debt securities by clicking on the ‘Link to IPO Prospectus’ provided below.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ffef3f15795d301785bb58e85f6fa15", "text": "I suspect that the payments were originally due near the end of each quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15) but then the December payment was extended to January 15 to allow for end-of-year totals to be calculated, and then the March payment was extended to April 15 to coincide with Income Tax Return filing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a2d6f5e9aee81d3da4405f9e2b98a3e", "text": "\"Amazon has some major issues with growing out in Seattle, primarily infrastructure and geography. Seattle's infrastructure is stretched, leading to some hilarious activity - \"\"http://kuow.org/post/seattle-traffic-got-so-bad-guy-started-flying-work\"\". Also, Seattle is locked between the sea and the mountains, and with a limited supply of land, there isn't anywhere to build economically. NO ROOM TO GROW. Ontario has a few good things going for it: Healthcare, Immigration, Low corporate taxes, Education... But there are also some elephants. Ontario has some of the highest land costs in the world, longest commute times on the planet, and a government which will inevitably need to raise taxes. If I had to bet, we'll probably see Amazon set up shop in a City with low land costs, ring roads, and a low debt government. A place with room to grow. Raleigh/Durham Dallas-Fort Worth Denver Minneapolis Salt Lake City Cincinnati\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14a9111f0d41690460427ab8a1cace5d", "text": "In a word, yes. You can buy very low cost index ETFs, like VTI, VEA, BND, FBND and rebalance in proportion to your age and risk tolerance. Minimal management and low cost.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7f98dd7ed1bf4829b4c4624c3f71b51", "text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe8b5b68a0c31cf7d1413d9103a608d", "text": "\"The relevant IRS publication is 526, Charitable Contributions. The section titled \"\"Contributions you cannot deduct\"\" begins on page 6; item 4 reads: \"\"The value of your time or services.\"\" I read that to mean that, if the website you built were a product, you could deduct its value. I don't understand the legal distinction between goods and services I originally said that I believe that a website is considered a service. Whether a website is a service or a product appears to be much more controversial that I originally thought. I cannot find a clear answer. I'm told that the IRS has a phone number you can call for rulings on this type of question. I've never had to use it, so I don't know how helpful it is. The best I can come up with is the Instructions for Form 1120s, the table titled \"\"Principal Business Activity Codes,\"\" starting on page 39. That table suggests to me that the IRS defines things based on what type of business you are in. Everything I can find in that table that a website could plausibly fall under has the word \"\"service\"\" in its name. I don't really feel like that's a definitive answer, though. Almost as an afterthought, if you were able to deduct the value of the website, you would have to subtract off whatever the value of the advertisement is. You said that it's not much, but there's probably a simple way of estimating that.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e3fbc8def7c62a89fdfaa00e3e20db01", "text": "\"As others have mentioned, it's important that there is a fair assessment of the market value of the items being donated. Joel's point about the government not looking kindly upon overvalued donations also applies in Canada: the CRA doesn't look kindly upon donation schemes such as \"\"buy-low, donate-high arrangements.\"\" Since nobody has offered up authoritative information for Canada yet, here's something to look at: Excerpts: 3) Gifts in kind of a taxpayer include capital property, depreciable property, personal-use property ... [...] 6) The fair market value of a gift in kind as of the date of the donation (the date on which beneficial ownership is transferred from the donor to the donee) must be determined before an amount can be recorded on a receipt for tax purposes. [...] The person who determines the fair market value of the property must be competent and qualified to evaluate the particular property being transferred by way of a gift. Property of little or only nominal value to the donor will not qualify as a gift in kind. Used clothing of little value would be an example of a non-qualifying contribution. You will need to find a charity that would both value the books you would be donating and be willing to issue you a receipt for your charitable donation. Whatever receipt they issue should be in line with fair market value of the goods donated. Assume your donation receipt will be challenged, and keep both: Finally, reasonable comparables might be prices for similar used goods, not a percentage of new. Though, if you can't find a price for a particular title in the used market, an estimate consistent with other valuations in the lot would be better than nothing, perhaps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "441d66b4f3a0b06654ca14ea69393c53", "text": "You better consult with a tax adviser (EA or CPA) on this, my answer doesn't constitute such an advice. Basically, you're selling stuff on Kickstarter. No matter how they call it (projects, pledges, rewards - all are just words), you're selling stuff. People give you money (=pledges) and in return you're giving them tangible or intangible goods (=rewards). All the rest is just PR. So you will pay taxes on all the money you get, and you will be able to deduct some of the expenses (depends on whether its a business or a hobby, the deduction may be full or limited). It doesn't matter if you use LLC or your own account from the financial/taxation point of you, but it matters legally. LLC limits your personal liability, but do get a legal advice on this issue, and whether it is at all relevant for you. If you raise funds in 2012 you pay taxes on the money in 2012. If you go into production in 2013 - you can deduct expenses in 2013. If you're classified as a hobby, you'll end up paying full taxes in 2012 and deducting nothing in 2013. Talk to a tax adviser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d0bac85c4c6e84de436bb69d1aa694e", "text": "\"Technically, this is considered \"\"income\"\" for you, and is actually not considered a \"\"donation\"\" for your donors, but is instead a \"\"gift\"\" (not tax-deductible for your donors). So, you are technically required to report it, and there is a pretty significant audit trail that can be followed to prove you made that money. I don't know if PayPal is required to file 1099s for payments received, but if you've ever received such a document, so has the IRS, and they'll match it to the income you claimed and see a discrepancy, triggering an audit. Depending on the amount that it affects your taxes (it can be significant; if you have a $50k/yr day job, you'd owe the government 25 cents on every dollar donated), they can let it slide, they may simply dock your next return, or they may come after you for interest and penalties or even charge you with criminal tax fraud if they could prove you maliciously attempted to conceal this revenue. Now, if you already itemize using a Schedule A, then you can erase this income by deducting the costs of the server, not to exceed the amount of the donations. The best you can do is offset it; you cannot use this deduction to reduce taxable income from other sources. Also, you must itemize; you can't take your standard deduction, and with a maximum possible deduction of the actual costs of running the server ($1500, IF you receive enough donations to fully pay for it) compared to one person's standard deduction ($5800), you'll want to take the standard deduction if you don't have other significant deductions (medical expenses, mortgage interest/property taxes, etc). If you were charging users a monthly fee for use of the server, then you've basically created a de facto sole proprietorship, and you would still have to count the fees as income, but could then deduct the full cost of running the server. You'd fill out a Schedule C listing the revenue and expenses, and back them up with statements from your ISP/hosting company and from PayPal. Now, this would apply if you were running the server with the primary goal of making a regular profit; Schedule C cannot be used for income from a \"\"hobby\"\", undertaken primarily for enjoyment and where a few bucks in revenue is gravy. Whether you think you can get away with that in your current situation is your prerogative; I don't think you would, given that the donations are solicited and optional, and thus there is no expectation of ever turning a profit on this game server.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15427b2d873c0374357b161b8e64aa0e", "text": "\"Nope, not deductible. It's true that some investment expenses are deductible, mainly as \"\"miscellaneous itemized expenses\"\", though only the amount that exceeds 2% of your adjusted gross income. But as explained in IRS Pub 550, which lays out the relevant rules: Stockholders' meetings. You cannot deduct transportation and other expenses you pay to attend stockholders' meetings of companies in which you have no interest other than owning stock. This is true even if your purpose in attending is to get information that would be useful in making further investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f62ac4aa1bf452b003ae5b0df6d20dd8", "text": "Not sure how authoritative it is, but according to this site, yes: Can a corporation, partnership or other non-living entity make the contribution to an ESA? Yes. The tax law does not restrict the ability to make contributions to living individuals. Corporations and other entities may make contributions without regard for the usual donor income limit. However, the same site indicates that you can just give the child the $2K and have them contribute to their own ESA, so yes, the income limit is pretty easy to get around.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13137b08509ded0d14669718b79b904", "text": "It is correct, in general. Gift tax is indeed at 35%, but you have the first 14K of your gift exempt from it for each person you give to, yearly (verify the number, it changes every year). You can also use your lifetime exemption ($5.45M in 2016, subject to change each year), but at the amounts you're talking about it still will not be enough. Charitable (501(c)) organizations, paying for someone's tuition or medical expenses (directly to the providers), political donations, transfer between you and your spouse - these are all exempt from gift tax. If you have 10 millions to give, I'm sure you can afford a $200 consultation with a EA/CPA licensed in your state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df8090240dd334ad2c157f72bb3e0944", "text": "\"Yes, you can make the election to file your LLC as an S-Corp, and Turbo Tax Business can help you with the S-Corp business return. You need to make sure you're set up correctly and there are a lot of things to be aware of. For example, the whole \"\"reasonable salary\"\" thing is a can of worms. So while the answer to your question is \"\"yes, it's manageable, you can do it on your own,\"\" it might be worthwhile to have a professional help you the first year, make sure it's set up right, and then you can do it on your own in subsequent years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe5167bac9cafefbf51d6b2b56d5510e", "text": "Generally this is simply a matter of the business paying taxes on the sale (income), balanced by a credit (charitable deduction), which eventually adds up to their not paying taxes on money they collected in order to pass it along to the charity. Note that because the business is taking the deduction on that donation, you can't take a deduction on the charitable portion of your purchase.", "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": "6b4a8a58510c0a359f5cf29ba9cb6373", "text": "I don't do corporate tax exclusively, but I don't think you're correct. The idea of pre-tax and post-tax earnings is significantly different from corporations than individuals since individuals see their taxes come out when they earn it and corporations pay taxes quarterly. At the very least, it's certainly not equivalent to a charitable contribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcfbda6f6efd84f91788beed892a5c23", "text": "\"Donations, particularly those in the context of you providing a free service (software, libraries, etc.) are a notable grey area in tax code. Simply naming a button \"\"Donate\"\" doesn't necessarily classify the money transfer as a \"\"gift\"\". The IRS can decide that it's money you're being paid to continue your excellent work/service, making it taxable income (unless you're a registered non-profit organization). In the instance of Patreon, and many other crowd-funding services, you're providing a certain level of \"\"service\"\" for each tier of donations (such as early access or something, I'm not sure what you're offering), which means they're receiving consideration for their donations, which most likely makes it fall into taxable income (again, unless you're a registered non-profit organization). State tax law is even more convoluted, and you should consult your tax professional for clarification on your specific situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9bdb78150f5089baeab672332d02d2", "text": "Federal income taxes are indeed expenses, they're just not DEDUCTIBLE expenses on your 1120. Federal Income Tax Expense is usually a subcategory under Taxes. This is one of the items that will be a book-to-tax difference on Schedule M-1. I am presuming you are talking about a C corporation, as an S corporation is not likely to be paying federal taxes itself, but would pass the liability through to the members. If you're paying your personal 1040 taxes out of an S-corporation bank account, that's an owner's draw just like paying any of your personal non-business expenses. I would encourage you to get a tax professional to prepare your corporate tax returns. It's not quite as simple as TurboTax Business makes it out to be. ;) Mariette IRS Circular 230 Notice: Please note that any tax advice contained in this communication is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by anyone to avoid penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "159ebc98bb6fd24aa4857ed919b18228", "text": "Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f142318cefb577f98c5922214fdc2a4", "text": "\"If this is truly hobby income (you do not intend to operate as a business and don't have a profit motive) then report the income on Line 21 (\"\"other income\"\") of form 1040. If this is a business, then the income and expenses belong on a Schedule C to form 1040. The distinction is in the treatment of profits and losses - your net profits on a business are subject to self-employment tax, while hobby income is not. Net losses on a business are deductible against other income; net losses on a hobby are miscellaneous itemized deductions in the \"\"2%\"\" box on Schedule A. From a tax point of view, selling apps and accepting donations are different. Arguably, donations are gifts; gifts are not taxable income. The hobby/business and income/gift distinctions are tricky. If the dollar amounts are small, nobody (including the IRS) really cares. If you start making or losing a lot of money, you'll want to get a good tax person lined up who can help you decide how to characterize these items of income and expens, how to put them on your return, and how to defend the return on audit if necessary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b8d28b5cc468191072149c2e1c9c59f", "text": "Here is a quote from the IRS website on this topic: You may be able to deduct premiums paid for medical and dental insurance and qualified long-term care insurance for yourself, your spouse, and your dependents. The insurance can also cover your child who was under age 27 at the end of 2011, even if the child was not your dependent. A child includes your son, daughter, stepchild, adopted child, or foster child. A foster child is any child placed with you by an authorized placement agency or by judgment, decree, or other order of any court of competent jurisdiction. One of the following statements must be true. You were self-employed and had a net profit for the year reported on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business; Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business; or Schedule F (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Farming. You were a partner with net earnings from self-employment for the year reported on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065), Partner's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., box 14, code A. You used one of the optional methods to figure your net earnings from self-employment on Schedule SE. You received wages in 2011 from an S corporation in which you were a more-than-2% shareholder. Health insurance premiums paid or reimbursed by the S corporation are shown as wages on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. The insurance plan must be established, or considered to be established as discussed in the following bullets, under your business. For self-employed individuals filing a Schedule C, C-EZ, or F, a policy can be either in the name of the business or in the name of the individual. For partners, a policy can be either in the name of the partnership or in the name of the partner. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your partnership can pay them and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the partnership must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Schedule K-1 (Form 1065) as guaranteed payments to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. For more-than-2% shareholders, a policy can be either in the name of the S corporation or in the name of the shareholder. You can either pay the premiums yourself or your S corporation can pay them and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. However, if the policy is in your name and you pay the premiums yourself, the S corporation must reimburse you and report the premium amounts on Form W-2 as wages to be included in your gross income. Otherwise, the insurance plan will not be considered to be established under your business. Medicare premiums you voluntarily pay to obtain insurance in your name that is similar to qualifying private health insurance can be used to figure the deduction. If you previously filed returns without using Medicare premiums to figure the deduction, you can file timely amended returns to refigure the deduction. For more information, see Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Amounts paid for health insurance coverage from retirement plan distributions that were nontaxable because you are a retired public safety officer cannot be used to figure the deduction. Take the deduction on Form 1040, line 29.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e1fdcd7e54bb83602f5e55c5b27dc940", "text": "At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f4644d808e6ad59b2b32bb273f916605", "text": "Just adding on a touch, when market participants refer to swaps they are talking about the fixed leg. So for example, if I said a 5y Receiver, it means I am receiving fixed, paying floating. Ie I want yields to fall. Opposite for a Payer. Swaption is just an option on these swaps, so basic swaptions: Long Payer Short Payer Long Receiver Short Receiver", "title": "" }, { "docid": "274e727752ce9db03711d4dd8ccc5128", "text": "No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95c2adec4356b3c197307f57a31ce4a5", "text": "Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1a0bab43fe7bd385d1f5b7263d5969a", "text": "It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91284308cba499b85643f7b82623a40f", "text": "Underwriting manager here. It's not a big deal. Call your processor or loan officer tomorrow to make sure it's been cleared. My guess is that the underwriter or loan officer noted the discrepancy and corrected it in their systems. You'll have to sign a updated 1003 and 4506T at closing with correct info. In other words...no biggie, no worries. Not a show stopper at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db92ce858b3591cf4d0933e4c1a1d624", "text": "\"No, it means that is only the notional value of that underlying asset of that contract, generally. The contract specification itself is listed on the exchange's websites, and there are really no assumptions you can make about a particular contract. Where S&P futures have one set of specifications, such as what it actually represents, how many each contract holds, how to price profits and losses... a different contract, such as FTSE 100 stock futures have a completely different set of specifications. Anyway in this one example the s&p 500 futures contract has an \"\"initial margin\"\" of $19,250, meaning that is how much it would cost you to establish that contract. Futures generally require delivery of 1,000 units of the underlying asset. So you would take the underlying asset's price and multiple it by 1,000. (what price you use is also mentioned in the contract specification), The S&P 500 index is $1588 you mentioned, so on Jun2013 you would have to delivery $1588 x 1000, or $1,588,000. GREAT NEWS, you only have to put up 1.2% in principal to control a 1.5 million dollar asset! Although, if even that amount is too great, you can look at the E-Mini S&P futures, which require about 1/10th the capital and delivery. This answer required that a lot of different subjects be mentioned, so feel free to ask a new question about the more specific topics.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad", "text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "557a6cad91cdbb47585518cd2448d807", "text": "If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "962ea288290efde34f5522ca7d5171a9", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29c773c8f73383cc694b0fada66b967a", "text": "\"In India the Short is what is called in other markets call as \"\"Naked Short\"\" [I think I got the right term]. It means that you can only short sell intra day and by the end of the day you have to buy back the shares [at whatever price, if you don't; the exchange will do it by force the next day]. In other markets the Intra day shorts are not allowed and one can short for several days by borrowing shares from someone else [arranged by broker] India has a futures market, so you can sell/buy something today with the execution date of one month. This is typically a fixed day of the month [I think last Thursday]\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f2843f0727becf25573f503842927fc", "text": "On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29051a1f78e6280e783af10934bd5ac1", "text": "Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "604d6e6632bbe79b43c46d666b062db5", "text": "TL;DR: The date they were granted. (Usually, this follows both an offer and acceptance.) It's not uncommon for a new vesting clock to start when there's a new round of funding coming in, because the investors want to make sure the key people are going to be engaged and incentivized going forward from that point. They don't lower their expectations for how long they want folks engaged based on the person having started earlier. Non-institutional investors may have the same concerns as institutional investors here and use the same vesting strategy to address them. Primary recognition of the benefits from having had people start earlier or be there longer (so long as it correlates with having gotten more done) is embedded in the valuation (which affects how much founders' shares are diluted in the raise).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0309fbecb80a3a101cb7c7470f46ecb8", "text": "\"the way they explain it is this: say you contribute 1 million each month from july 2010 to june 2011, they wait for the 12 million at the end of the year and \"\"start to invest\"\" it at the start of the next financial year (july 2011 to june 2012). so after june 2012, they'll get the profit, subtract admin costs and all, then announce the balance as interest. the interest announced applies to the whole 12 million from 2010-11. i guess the excuse here is that since they announce interest per financial year, they wouldn't have enough time to properly invest money collected towards the end months of apr, may and june, if they were to announce interest in the following july.. so they'd need another year to properly do the investing for that money collected. how else would you handle giving interest for money collected in june? i can see their point but i just feel like there's something off there.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "45f75f318140ab32ba09e27eb9b885aa", "text": "\"Investing in an existing company is almost like buying a house, or even becoming an \"\"Angel investor\"\" in a start-up. Before you start the process, decide how much you want to be involved in the day-to-day and which industries you would feel most comfortable in. The latter is an important consideration since you would have to know sufficient about the industry in order to evaluate the quality of your prospective investment. Searching for a suitable business is a time-consuming process: The guidance for evaluating any company has been answered in another question, so I'll simply link. Most business owners are looking to their businesses to provide them a pension, so they often look to sell around retirement age. Buying such a business is tricky - you may be assisting the next generation to finance the purchase which can have it's own struggles. Ideally you'll be looking for a young(ish) company with proven sales and which is looking to finance growth in an optimal way. Such a company may have many options for raising capital so you'll be competing to invest. As to whether or not it's a good idea... KFC only became a household name and global franchise after Pete Harman joined Harland Sanders as a partner. Richard and Maurice McDonald may have founded McDonald's but it was Ray Kroc who made it a success. New partners bring in new ideas and fresh energy which the original entrepreneurs may have lost during the difficulties of starting out. But that goes back to my first query; just how much do you want to get involved?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3", "text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123", "text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a", "text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f9a983c9f3d7c33a93dfd9dbe49aef", "text": "It depends on the firm. I was interviewing with a few PE firms a few months ago, and the structure can vary. Some were definitely just LBO shops where the bulk of the staff were focused just on the deal. I remember a couple, however, that placed a lot of emphasis on getting in-house after the deal and performing what ultimately amounted to long term management consulting. These firms tended to hold companies for like 10+ years iirc. It sounds like there might be options out there in line with your passions, you just need to be pretty picky with the firm you join. I only remember one firm's name off the top of my head, but I'd be happy to pm it to you if you want to do some more research yourself.", "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": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c", "text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4e52de00689799d0a38c9951bef61de", "text": "You can find out the general types of investments by reading the public corporation 10-Q report that is filed with the SEC it can be accessed via the EDGAR system. It will not tell you what securities they have, but it does identify the short term and long term investments categories and their value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0011d1c9d452a858e46b0056fe52fcd", "text": "I mean some VCs focus on technology companies, that's a sector focus, but a very broad one. Are you saying you don't want to be limited to one sector? Also keep in mind that series B investments are much more expensive then A rounds, just because there is more proof and less risk. I know of some angel investors that invest by size rather than industry, maybe you could partner up with them. All depends on how much capital you have/ how much involvement you want to have with the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d57b67ca815daf49301d978bbff5b9", "text": "\"You may want to look into robo-investors like Wealthfront and Betterment. There are many others, just search for \"\"robo investor\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4169e685a12d264278d31530c50068e", "text": "Here is a nice overview from Vanguard on some options for a small business owner to offer retirement accounts. https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-business/compare-plans I would look over the chart and decide which avenue is best for you and then call around to investment companies (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. etc.) asking for pricing information.", "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": "35ed04b2dace3b1397574bc03dc60917", "text": "\"As for the letting the \"\"wise\"\" people only make the decisions, I guess that would be a bit odd in the long run. Especially when you get more experienced or when you don't agree with their decision. What you could do, is make an agreement that always 3/4 (+/-) of the partners must agree with an investment. This promotes your involvement in the investments and it will also make the debate about where to invest more alive, fun and educational). As for the taxes I can't give you any good advice as I don't know how tax / business stuff works in the US. Here in The Netherlands we have several business forms that each have their own tax savings. The savings mostly depend on the amount of money that is involved. Some forms are better for small earnings (80k or less), other forms only get interesting with large amounts of money (100k or more). Apart from the tax savings, there could also be some legal / technical reasons to choose a specific form. Again, I don't know the situation in your country, so maybe some other folks can help. A final tip if your also doing this for fun, try to use this investment company to learn from. This might come in handy later.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e05f0c1f8a91df35f4a20898dda67e", "text": "Shorts are difficult because you have to find someone to lend the stock to you. In contrast, put options don't require that. They also have some nice properties like you're only out the contract price. The options chain for BSFT will give you an idea of where the market is. Keep in mind that BSFT only IPO'd last year and announced blowout earnings recently. Make sure the P:E you're looking at is using recent earnings reports!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3ac188863937de2106c8c20b17e1bbb7", "text": "As I understand it (please correct me if i'm wrong, i've looked at this before and i've been a sole trader briefly but I've never formed a LTD company) there are pros and cons to forming a limited company. Pros Cons", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a8096fb4a4696fa026ea16948b8af0f", "text": "Source Sole trader If you start working for yourself, you’re classed as a self-employed sole trader - even if you’ve not yet told HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). As a sole trader, you run your own business as an individual. You can keep all your business’s profits after you’ve paid tax on them. You can employ staff. ‘Sole trader’ means you’re responsible for the business, not that you have to work alone.You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. Tax responsibilities You must: You’re personally responsible for any losses your business makes. This is one condition which you would need to have a look. If you do some shoddy work and your client wants to recover the losses they can come after your personal money or property. LLPs have the same probelm too. And you pay NI and income tax on all of your profits. If you have a partner then both can take out the profits of a limited company, if both are directors. The tax hit will be less as compared to a single person.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6f502d2bdee21a91a60a914580f1d61e", "text": "You can find a lot of information at the HRMC website at http://hmrc.gov.uk. If you don't want to work as an employee, you can register as self-employed (basically a one-man band), which is quite simple, you can start your own company, which is more work but can have tax advantages, or you can find umbrella companies which will officially employ you while in reality you are a freelancer and only do your billing through them. Umbrella companies can be anywhere from totally legal to extremely dodgy. If they promise you that you pay only five percent tax on your income through ingenious tricks, that's only until the tax office finds out and they will make you pay. Between self-employed and your own company, the big difference is whether you are actually working independently or not. If you work like an employee (take someone else's orders) and claim you are a company, the tax office doesn't like that. And if you pay very little taxes, they don't like that either. So self-employed is the safer choice but you will pay more taxes, close to what a normal employee would pay. Obviously you will have to pay tax on your income and NHS insurance. Obviously you are required to tell the government (actually HMRC) about your income. Not doing so would be tax evasion and get you into deep trouble when you are caught. I don't think you have to tell them the source of your income, but not telling them might look very suspicious and might get your accounts checked carefully. And unless you design a website for the mafia, why wouldn't you tell them? The bill payer will try to deduct your bill from their profits anyway, so it's no secret. Most important to remember: When you send out a bill and receive payment, you'll have to pay tax on it. When self employed, as a rule of thumb put one third away into a savings account for your tax bill. Don't spend it all or you will find yourself in deep trouble when your taxes need paying. Plus put some more away for times when you can't find work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f377bf8b7f5ca4193644635caed01974", "text": "Firstly if you've formed a limited company you don't need to register as self-employed. You're an employee and shareholder of the company and your taxes will be handled that way. Registering as self-employed is only necessary if you're operating as a sole trader (i.e. without a company). Secondly you absolutely do want to get set-up correctly with HMRC as soon as possible, whether you're a company or a sole trader. Ignoring the legal question your worry about paying taxes when you have no income is groundless - if you're not making any money there won't be any tax to pay. Furthermore it seems likely that the business is currently losing money. Those losses, if correctly recorded, can be carried forward and offset against future profits so not only do you not have to pay tax now, but you can reduce the tax you pay later when the money does start rolling in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c7fd30c8303ec146bf06020749ffcb", "text": "The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:", "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": "fcea0195c525dd15d0979228c8159f02", "text": "Use a limited company. Use the HMRC website for help on limited companies and get a good accountant for doing your taxes. Mixing your website income and personal income may make you pay a higher tax rate. You can take out expenses from the limited company, which are tax deductible. But if you group it in personal income it wouldn't be tax deductible. In a personal capacity you are 100% liable if your business goes bust and you owe debt. But for a limited company you are only liable for what you own i.e %age of shares. You can take on an investor if your business booms and it is easier if you do it through a limited company rather than through a personal endeavour.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcaf54599e1643faabf88cf789396fb3", "text": "I guess you are making quite a bit of assumptions without clarifying what you are trying to achieve. As a non-resident you cannot incorporate a sole proprietorship in Singapore. You have to be citizen. Alternatively you can register a company that has its own norms like minimum number of directors and some being Singapore national, etc. As you are paying dividend and not salary to yourself, the company will be required to pay taxes on gains. So all consulting money is gain as there is no expense. The balance when you transfer to Spain would potentially get taxed as income to you subject to DTAA", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b20f947365127fa9960e94eccba69e3", "text": "\"In simple terms, it is a business operation when it becomes a profit-making enterprise. It is a grey area, but there is a difference between selling occasional personal items on eBay and selling for profit. I would imagine the sort of considerations HM Revenue & Customs would take into account are the size of your turnover, the extent to which you are both buying and selling, and whether you are clearly specialising in one particular commodity as opposed of disposing of unwanted presents or clearing the loft. http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/When-does-eBay-selling-become-taxable-/10000000004494855/g.html I don't believe that you selling your personal camera gear will be taxable, but as the link says, it is a grey area. They also recommend to do this It's far better than having to deal with an investigation a few years down the line. When it comes to completing your tax return, there is a section which is headed \"\"other income\"\", and it is here where you will enter the net earnings from the web business. \"\"Net\"\" here means your additional income, less all expenses associated with it. If you are still worried I would always encourage people to take a cautious approach and discuss their position with HMRC via its helpline on 08454 915 4515.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83f92b50ccebdd89ecdfa9794d4be2f5", "text": "I'm hearing that I should maybe wait and see how things go at first as it is only a very small operation. But if I moved into a side of the trade where I require staff, vehicles, and the likes then I would need to registed as a limited company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29bee6cf3c5e3539af8867ea50a27cef", "text": "It is a bit of work and expense to form a LLC. In the long run it is the best approach because it shields your personal assets from business liability. In the short run, you can form as a sole proprietor and operate that way, and later convert to a LLC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e48693bde300c48d90869879df069e1", "text": "\"I don't think it really matters, my understanding is that as a sole trader there is no distinction between your personal and business tax affairs. The distinction between your personal and business account is mainly for your own personal benefit to make it easier to differentiate between \"\"wages\"\" and retained earnings. If you want to maintain this distinction with regard to tax then you need to somehow differentiate between tax paid on your \"\"wage\"\" and tax paid on retained earnings. You could then either make two payments, or pay from either and transfer the difference from the other. Either way, it's just a matter of perspective rather than something with a physical difference.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235931fe0d75e0b8eb16414243603e3a", "text": "\"Here's a brief rundown: 1. You're not going to need a lot of capital or debt 2. You aren't in a high-liability or high (MM+) revenue industry unless you're making children's toys out of reclaimed dynamite or something 3. You are operating by yourself The first fact rules out S or C corp. The second fact dings LLC, and the third one rules out a LLP or GP by default, although you can always convert later if you get a partner. Benefits of sole proprietorship include very simple taxes! As a pass-through entity, the business's income is considered your own, and business expenses are tax deductible. You don't need separate tax returns for both. Additionally, if it's just your name, you might not even need a license depending on your state and municipality (figure this out). If you want a different name, you usually need to register \"\"doing business as [name]\"\" with your state or municipality. Lastly, you don't need to use business income in any special way, since you have no additional tax liability or general liability shield. With an LLC, there are a lot of rules and restrictions. Let me know if you have any specific questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4d9f1267819d3b2b983b80baa1d1671", "text": "You will be categorized as self employed. Will I have to register myself as a company or can go on unregistered and work You can register a company or can use an umbrella company or work as a sole trader. Remember as a sole trader you are legally responsible for you company's activities, an if a company sues you for your work he can take compensation from your personal assets. As a company your liability ends with the company, if your company is sued. Your personal assets are outside the purview of the lawsuit, but the court can attach that also but those are rare. This doesn't matter if you use an umbrella company. If you intend to be doing this for a short time(maybe a year or so), go for an umbrella company. Else register a company. will take you 5 minutes to form one. Depending on your earning you might need to register for VAT too. A comprehensive guide for self employed on HMRC. what would i need to be sound in uk and to be fit to work online as a freelancer? The same as above. Will it include paying any tax or paying any insurance Yes you have register for National Insurance(NI), before you can pay yourself a salary. The benefit of a company is you pay yourself a minimum salary, below the limit above which you have to contribute for NI, and take the rest as dividends. And pay no tax on it, till you don't exceed the limits. When the money comes in my account, will i be accountable to government of uk, to tell the source of income? If you are operating through a company, yes you would need to show your income(including source) and expenditure when you do your annual returns. What should i be knowing, like health insurance and things that are necessities in uk for a freelancer ? No health insurance as NHS exists. You can take out health insurance if you don't want to get into queues in NHS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceefd9186fbe63a649c1b841cd61d71d", "text": "It makes no difference for tax purposes. If you are 1099, you will pay the same amount of taxes as if you formed a corporation and then paid yourself (essentially you are doing this as a 1099 contractor, just not formally). Legally, I don't know the answer. I would assume you have some legal protections by forming an LLC but practically I think this won't make any difference if you get sued.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a279ca195fb059cdc40775cca8a0e5d3", "text": "As an LLC you are required to have a separate bank account (so you can't have one account and mix personal and business finances together as you could if you were a sole trader) - but there's no requirement for it to be a business bank account. However, the terms and conditions of most high street bank personal current accounts specifically exclude business banking, so unless you could find one that would allow it, you'd have to open a business bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dc6474959e9d1c1a8874382d455188c", "text": "From my experience it is much easier to start as a self-employed rather than a limited company. You almost have no paperwork and self assessment can be done online in as little as 20 minutes (from personal experience). On the other hand having a limited company grants you a pile of papers to fill in from the start and almost certainly needing an accountant to do your taxes. Regarding the income tax - if you have no profits, you will pay no tax. And that will leave you only with national insurance that is only about £70 for 3 month (better check with HMRC for the exact figure). So if you don't have a good enough reason to do a Ltd, start as a self-employed, you can always change to limited company later.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "390033140caf6afd5b6091dd66fc7e81", "text": "\"As far as I know any business can register for VAT regardless of the nature of the business. If all the goods you sell (or services you provide) are VAT-exempt or zero-rated then you will get refunds from HMRC on VAT your business pays. Any business whose non-VAT exempt turnover (which would include zero-rated goods and services provided) exceeds the registration threshold must register, again even if that means they are \"\"forced\"\" to claim refunds. So the only question would be whether your rather nebulous activities were enough to qualify you as a business or organisation to which the VAT regime applies at all. The one-liner answer to that is generally, if goods or services are provided in return for a charge, there’s a business activity for VAT purposes Inevitably there's a much bigger body of statute and case law and it won't always be obvious whether the one-liner answer applies or not to a particular activity so it may be necessary to seek specialist advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21d4e1e1342a71f70549aee9c0eb3e5b", "text": "IANAL, I have not been VAT registered myself but this is what I have picked up from various sources. You might want to confirm things with your solicitor or accountant. As I understand it there is a critical difference between supplying zero-rated goods/services and supplying exempt goods/services. If the goods/services are zero-rated then the normal VAT rules apply, you charge VAT on your outputs (at a rate of 0%) and can claim back VAT on your inputs (at whatever rate it was charged at, depending on the type of goods.. If the goods/services are exempt you don't charge and VAT on your outputs and can't claim back any VAT on your inputs. (Things get complicated if you have a mixture of exempt and non-exempt outputs) According to http://oko.uk/blog/adsense-vat-explained adsense income is a buisness to buisness transaction with a company in another EU country and so from a supplier point of view (you are the supplier, google is the customer) it counts as a zero-rated transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a254f084d7f18a44be22b255ec156e46", "text": "\"You cannot \"\"claim back\"\" VAT. What happens is that if you sell goods with VAT and charge customers VAT, you would have to send that VAT straight to HMRC, but if your business itself paid VAT, then you already paid VAT, so you have to send less. As an example, if you send an invoice for £10,000 plus £2,000 VAT, and you paid yourself £500 VAT on business related expenses, then you need to send £2,000 - £500 = £1,500 to HMRC. But if you don't send invoices including VAT, then you owe HMRC £0. Any VAT you paid on business related expenses is lost; HMRC won't pay you money. BTW. Only VAT on business related expenses can be deducted. So if you want to be \"\"smart\"\", register for VAT and get the VAT on your weekly shopping bill refunded, forget it.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f6596d074e54060305ee4274ca92893b", "text": "\"Going by the information from Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the Australian Government website, there seem to be a number of possibilities. Note: First I am neither a tax expert nor a lawyer; this is simply my interpretation of the rules on the page linked above. Second, this interpretation is based on the assumption that \"\"resells a service\"\" means you (at least technically) buy the service from another company and sell it on to the users of your app. Depending on the nature of the service, and possibly factors such as whether you are deemed to \"\"take possession\"\" during the transaction, it might be that different rules apply. Your Turnover is Under A$75,000 (Providing you're not reselling taxi services!) You won't need to register for GST, should not charge it, and your invoices should show that GST was not included in the price. However, if the turnover of the company whose services you are reselling is registered for GST, they will be charging you GST that you will not be able to claim back, so you would need to factor this into the price you charge your users (before any promotional discount). For example: Your Turnover is Over A$75,000 If your turnover is above the limit, you would need to charge GST on the final sale amount and pay this amount (one eleventh of the price your customer paid) to the Australian Government. You also have to send out properly-formatted tax invoices. However, it's probably safe to say the company you are buying the original service from will also be over the GST threshold, so you should be able to reclaim the GST that was charged to you by them. For example: Here, your overall profit/loss is helped by the fact that you can reclaim the GST you were charged, and can under some circumstances result in an overall rebate. These figures assume you add 10% to your selling price to cover the GST you have to pay the Government. However, this may make your offering uncompetitive, so you may have to absorb some/all of the GST yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72b1e6985173d4f438917c27830348c5", "text": "Not doing this would defeat the entire purpose of a VAT. The reason for a VAT rather than a simple sales tax is that it's harder to evade. Having a simple sales tax with the type of rates that VAT taxes typically are is unworkable because evasion is too easy. Imagine I'm a retailer. I buy products from a wholesaler and sell them to consumers. With a sales tax, if I don't charge the customer sales tax, the customer is happy and I don't care (assuming I don't get caught). And if I keep the sales tax but don't report the sale, I make a lot of money. Now, imagine a VAT. If I don't charge the customer the VAT, I lose money since I paid the VAT on the wholesale products. And if I don't report the sale, how do I claim my VAT refund?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7384ba26029dc697a612316e7d27c1e7", "text": "You are either VAT registered or you are not VAT registered. If you are not VAT registered, then you are not allowed to charge customers VAT, and you cannot reclaim VAT that you are paying. You are however allowed to deduct the cost of goods including VAT from your expenses. So if you buy a computer for £1000 + £200 VAT, and you can deduct the computer as an expense to reduce your profits that you pay income tax for, then the expense is £1,200 and not just £1,000. If you are VAT registered, then you MUST charge every customer 20% VAT. Business customers don't mind at all, but private customers will be happier if you don't charge VAT because your bills will be a lot lower. You take all the VAT that you received, then subtract all the VAT that you paid for business expenses and that you have invoices for, and send the remainder to HMRC four times a year. (The reason that businesses don't mind paying VAT is because they can in turn deduct the VAT they pay you from the VAT that they received and for every pound they give you, they give one pound less to HMRC). Note that when you have expenses that are deductible from your profits, you can now only deduct the cost excluding VAT. On the other hand, the VAT you receive doesn't count as income and doesn't lead to profits that you need to pay income tax for. It's your decision whether you want to be VAT registered or not, unless your revenue exceeds some limit (somewhere between £70,000 and £80,000 per year) where you must register for VAT.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9757bb5c63f8eaefdd7cb9c62f6da0b4", "text": "\"The HMRC has a dedicated self-help/learning site that is helpful here: It's important to tell HMRC that you are self-employed as soon as possible. If you don't, you may have to pay a penalty. You don't want to pay more to HMRC than you have to as it is a waste of your money. Your business has started when you start to advertise or you have a customer to buy your goods or services. It is at this point that your business is 'trading'. You cannot register before you start trading. For example, if you advertise your business in the local newspaper on 15 January but do not get your first customer until 29 March; in this case, you have been trading since 15 January. You must tell HMRC within six months of the end of the tax year in which you start self-employment. You must therefore register by 5 October. But it's best to register well before this so that you do not forget to do so. The HMRC also has a YouTube channel with help videos, and \"\"Am I Trading or Not?\"\" might be of particular interest to you. Most of the registration is based around the concept of starting to work with the intent to make a profit. By the letter of law and regulations, you should register within six months of the end of the tax year you started to avoid any potential penalty. However note that the situation is different based upon your intent. If you begin making/putting up videos online as a hobby with the hope that you can make something to help you defray the basic costs involved, and the total amount you make is relatively small (say, less than 500 pounds), you will not be classified as \"\"trading\"\" and likely have no need to register with HMRC. As soon as you begin to get in regular payments, maybe a single payment of a significant size, or multiple payments for a similar service/item, you are vastly more likely to need to register. From my reading you would likely be safe to begin putting up videos without registration, but if you begin spending a large portion of your time over an extended period (multiple months) and/or begin getting payments of any notable size then you should likely register with the appropriate services (HMRC, etc). As is the case in both the USA and UK, simple registration is pretty cheap and the costs of little/no income are usually pretty minor. Also note that the HMRC trading and self-employment regulations are unusual compared to many US laws/institutions, in that you are explicitly permitted to begin doing something and only register later. So if you start doing videos for an entire tax year + 5 months and make nothing significant, you'd seemingly be fine to never register at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a0f5ae5d21bde5bfb381e841ac88197", "text": "Most US states have rules that go something like this: You will almost certainly have to pay some registration fees, as noted above. Depending on how you organize, you may or may not need to file a separate tax return for the business. (If you're sole proprietor for tax purposes, then you file on Schedule C on your personal Form 1040.) Whether or not you pay taxes depends on whether you have net income. It's possible that some losses might also be deductible. (Note that you may have to file a return even if you don't have net income - Filing and needing to pay are not the same since your return may indicate no tax due.) In addition, at the state level, you may have to pay additional fees or taxes beyond income tax depending on what you sell and how you sell it. (Sales tax, for example, might come into play as might franchise taxes.) You'll need to check your own state law for that. As always, it could be wise to get professional tax and accounting advice that's tailored to your situation and your state. This is just an outline of some things that you'll need to consider.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3af1d7a148fad877b7f7b63019357b09", "text": "The plumber will apply for and receive a refund of the amount of VAT he paid on the purchase amount. That's the cornerstone of how VAT works, as opposed to a sales tax. So for example: (Rounded approximate amounts for simplicity) Now, at each point, the amount between (original cost VAT) and (new VAT) is refunded. So by the end, a total of £3 VAT is paid on the pipe (not £6.2); and at each point the business 'adding value' at that stage pays that much. The material company adds £1 value; the producer adds £4 value; the supplier adds £5 value; the plumber adds £5 value. Each pays some amount of VAT on that amount, typically 20% unless it's zero/reduced rated. So the pipe supplier pays £1 but gets a £0.2 refund, so truly pays £0.8. The plumber pays £3 (from your payment) but gets a £2 refund. So at each level somebody paid a bit, and then that bit is then refunded to the next person up the ladder, with the final person in the chain paying the full amount. The £0.2 is refunded to the producer, the £1 is refunded to the supplier, the £2 is refunded to the plumber.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c2160b3fe80479769675a4fc398c663", "text": "If you are providing VAT-liable services (you probablly are) and you register normally for VAT then you will be able to reclaim VAT on your buisness purchases but you will have to charge VAT to your clients. So the question really comes down to will your clients regard you adding VAT to their invoices as a price increase or not. That is likely to depend on whether your clients are in a position to claim-back the VAT you charged them. If you are working mostly for VAT registered buisnesses who perform primerally vat-liable (including zero-rated) activities then registering for VAT is likely in your financial interests (though it does mean more paperwork). The flat-rate scheme may be better still. If you are working mostly for private individuals, non VAT registered buisnesses or buisnesses which primerally perform VAT exempt* activities then registering for VAT when you don't have to is most likely not in your financial interests. * Note: VAT exempt and zero rated for VAT are very different things even though they look similar to the customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d294dd6438dfaa3a54557e2c33f1d5ae", "text": "You don't have to register for corporation tax until you start doing business: After you’ve registered your company with Companies House, you’ll need to register it for Corporation Tax. You’ll need to do this within 3 months of starting to do business. Since you haven't needed to do that yet, there also shouldn't be any need to tell HMRC you've stopped trading. So it should just be a question of telling Companies House - I guess it's possible they'll first want you to provide the missing accounts.", "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": "8332285867ed963bb8650fb213379aca", "text": "Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e35b50511df8a0a78fcdf833adddd5", "text": "Compliance issues vary from country to country and, in the US, state to state as well. There'll be a number of levels, though: Bear in mind that it is not that these taxes and responsibilities don't apply to sole traders or unregistered businesses, it's just that being registered signals your existence and introduces the bureaucracy to you all at once. Update: Your accountant should manage your company and consumer tax calculations and submissions on your behalf (and a good one will complete all the paperwork on time plus let you know well in advance what your liability is, as well as offer advice on reducing and restructuring these liabilities). You're probably on your own for local taxes unless your accountant deals with these and is local to even know what they are.", "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": "e6c0ce6d855e23a095166cf2c36b03e8", "text": "Your answer will need loads of information and clarification, so I will ask you to visit the VAT and have a peruse. 1) Obligation is for you to find out the correct rate of VAT, charge and pay tax accordingly. You can call up the HMRC VAT helpline for help, which they will be happy to oblige. Normally everybody pays VAT every 3 months or you can pay once in a year. 2) Depends on your annual turnover, including VAT. Less than £150000 you join the Flat rate scheme. There are schemes for cultural activities. Might be good to check here on GOV.UK. 3) If you pay VAT in EU countries, you can reclaim VAT in UK. You need to reclaim VAT while filing in your VAT returns. But be careful about your receipts, which can be checked to verify you are not defrauding HMRC. The basic rule is that B2B services are, as the name suggests, supplies from one business to another. And, subject to some exceptions, are treated as made where the customer belongs. No VAT is chargeable on B2B supplies to an overseas customer. But where you make a B2C supply, VAT depends on where your customer is located: 1) if they are outside the EU, you don’t need to charge VAT 2) if they are located in an EU country, then you must charge VAT. Source All in all keep all records of VAT charged and paid to satisfy the taxman. If the rules get complicated, get an accountant to help you out. Don' take chances of interpreting the law yourself, the fines you might pay for wrong interpretation might be a deal breaker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb92bdb06c45cd6b5e611c8ca35c2db", "text": "If you do business under your name, you don't need to register your business. Your business will be treated as a sole proprietorship. If your revenue exceeds 30,000 (or wish to collect GST for the government) then you will have to register with the CRA for a GST account, but that is free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cdfa5eb579e2b1f99667e415dc13ca6", "text": "An order is not a transaction. It is a request to make a transaction. If the transaction never occurs (e.g. because you cancel the order), then no fees should be charged. will I get the stamp duty back (the 0.5% tax I paid on the shares purchase) when I sell the shares? I'm not a UK tax expert, but accorging to this page is seems like you only pay stamp tax when you buy shares, and don't get it back when you sell (but may be responsible for capital gains taxes). That makes sense, because there's always a buyer and a seller, so if you got the tax back when you sold, the tax would effectively be transferred from the buyer to the seller, and the government would never collect anything.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c994e56fbf8994af3ecd8cec6f6ab0b7", "text": "Put one of your monthly bills on it. (Utility bill, Netflix, monthly donation to charity, etc.) I have several automatic, recurring monthly charges on my credit card. If you don't have any current monthly bills that you want to switch, contact the Red Cross, or a charity of your choice. They would be very happy to charge your credit card once a month. Alternatively, it might be okay to let it close.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecad50d0648a674b4523a69676b615e9", "text": "credit cards are almost never closed for inactivity. i have had dozens of cards innactive for years on end, and only one was ever closed on me for inactivity. i would bet a single 1$ transaction per calendar year would keep all your cards open. as such, you could forget automating the process and just spend 20 minutes a year making manual 1$ payments (e.g. to your isp, utility company, google play, etc.). alternatively, many charities will let you set up an automatic monthly donation for any amount (e.g. 1$ to wikipedia). or perhaps you could treat yourself to an mp3 once a month (arguably a charitable donation in the age of file sharing). side note: i use both of these strategies to get the 12 debit card transactions per month required by my kasasa checking account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30d55c1e0d1dd8e52071f99a9f67d620", "text": "\"I agree with the rest of the answers -- you're probably better off just using it for some predictable flat-rate recurring monthly service like NetFlix, or making a charitable donation if you're into that sort of thing. But since that wasn't what you asked, I'll try to provide an answer: If you don't mind throwing away money, send money to yourself using PayPal. Here's how: Set up a PayPal Business Account, and use your personal PayPal account to send funds to it by setting up a PayPal subscription. PayPal says \"\"You can have one Consumer account and one Business account.\"\" A PayPal Payments Standard business account has no monthly fee -- only transaction fees. According to PayPal, \"\"in order to set up a repeating payment, [you] would need to create a Subscription or Recurring Payments button from the Merchant Services tab\"\" (in the Business Account). You would then click the link/button to set up the subscription from your personal PayPal account, to make it send money to your Business account on an automatic schedule. You can then, at your own leisure, send the money back to your personal account without paying a second transaction fee, then finally send it back to your bank account. Or, if your bank account is not yet tied to your personal account, you can tie it to the business account instead, and deposit the funds into your bank account. Unfortunately, this step can't be automated. Again, to reiterate, you're much better off just using it for something recurring.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b771389811e460bb373e4008ecb2256", "text": "Putting money into your Amazon gift card balance is also a very convenient option, but I like these recurring Red Cross and Wikipedia ideas also.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "46b26494beacf4d3c775ea55659accb4", "text": "\"If you enter the transactions as you execute them (and categorize them then), Quicken will attempt to Match downloaded transactions with ones already in the register. \"\"Memorized transactions\"\" with known parties can also help. My credit card downloads actually come with a rough categorization provided by the vendor; that may or may not be accurate enough to save you some work.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "580d7128f24e08befbe78bf7c0f80f29", "text": "Essentially speaking, when you purchase goods worth $100 using your card, the store has to pay about $2 for the transaction to the company that operates that stores' credit card terminal. If you withdraw cash from an ATM, you might be charged a fee for such a transaction. However, the ATM operator doesn't pay the credit processor such a transaction fee - thus, it is classified as a cash transaction. Additionally, performing cash advances off a CC is a rather good indicator of a bad financial health of the user, which increase the risk of default, and in some institutions is a factor contributing to their internal creditworthiness assessment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "768d911368643c7cf2504b6ef63a28b4", "text": "The technical feature exists to (1)block all ACH activity, (2)block all ACH credits, or (3)block all ACH debits attempting to post to the deposit account. The large financial institutions will not deviate from their company policies and won't offer something like this for a personal account. The smaller institutions and credit unions are much more willing to discuss options. Especially if you maintain a large deposit balance or have many products with the institution, you might convince them this feature is very important and insist they block all ACH activity on your account. This feature is used frequently on controlled asset accounts where the balance must be frozen for a variety of reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73851022abdb3f0a43549072dcdda4a5", "text": "This really should be a comment, but I can't yet. The question desperately needs a location tag. In at least some countries(New Zealand), the default action on all insufficient funds transactions is to refuse the transaction. Credit cards are the only common exception. Every bank operating in NZ that I know of acts this way. Sometimes there is a fee for bouncing a transaction, sometimes not, that depends on the bank. Any other option must be explicitly arranged in writing with the bank. Personally, coming from a country where declining transactions is the default, I'd be shocked and angry to be stuck with an automatic transfer from another account. Angry enough to change banks if they won't immediately cease and desist.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2025b241f8fe7e14defc87ce78a3fd", "text": "\"One key point that other answers haven't covered is that many credit cards have a provision where if you pay it off every month, you get a grace period on the interest. Interest doesn't accrue at all unless you rollover a non-zero balance. But if you do, you pay interest on the average balance, not the rolled-over balance, for the entire month. You have to ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish with your credit history? Are you trying to maximize your \"\"buying power\"\" (really, leverage)? Or are you trying to make sure that you get the best terms on a moderately sized loan (house mortgage, car note)? As JohnFx and losthorse already noted, it's in the banker's best interest to maximize the profit they make off of you. Of course, that is not in your best interest. Keeping a credit card balance from month to month definitely feeds the greedy nature of the financing beast. And makes them willing to take more risks, because the returns are also higher. But those returns cost you. If you are planning to get sensible loans in the future, that you can comfortably afford, you won't need a maxed credit score. You won't get the largest loan amounts, but because you are doing the sensible thing and making a large down payment, the risk is also very low and you'll find lenders willing to give you a low interest rate. Because even though the reward is lower than the compulsive purchaser who pays an order of magnitude more in financing fees, the return/risk ratio is still very favorable to the bank. Don't play the game that maximizes their return. That happens when you have a loan of maximum size, high interest rate, and struggle to make payments, end up missing a couple and paying late fees, or request forbearance which compounds the interest. Play to minimize risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b251bd183b378842ff6da7ed601a96b7", "text": "\"In the US, if your monthly statement was issued by the credit card company on January 1 and it showed a balance of $1000, then a payment must be made towards that balance by January 25 or so, not February 1 as you say, to keep the card in good standing. The minimum payment required to keep the card in good standing is specified in your monthly statement, and failure to meet this requirement can trigger various consequences such as an increase in the interest rate charged by the credit card company. With regard to interest charges, whether your purchase of $2000 on January 3 is charged interest or not depends entirely on what happened the previous two months. If you had paid both your monthly statements dated November 1 and December 1 of the previous year in full by the their respective due dates of November 25 and December 25, and the $1000 balance on the January 1 statement is entirely due to purchases (no cash advances) made in December, then you will not be charged interest on your January purchase of $2000 as long as you pay it off in full by February 25 (the charge will appear on your February 1 statement). But, if you had not paid your December 1 statement in full by December 25, then that $1000 billed to you on January 1 will include purchases made during December finance charges on the unpaid balance from the previous month plus finance charges on the purchases made during December. The finance charges will continue to accumulate during January until such time as you pay off the bill in full (these charges will appear on your February 1 statement), hopefully by the due date of January 25. But even if you pay off that $1000 in full on January 25, your charge of $2000 on January 3 will start to accumulate finance charges as of the day it hits the account and these finance charges will appear on your February 1 statement. If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an \"\"interest-free\"\" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called \"\"zero percent balance transfer offers\"\" are accepted.\"", "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": "7644dd12efd99f9946a2a08c0327b5e1", "text": "Automated Clearing House transactions are used in the US for direct deposit of pay checks and direct debit of many payments for accounts such as mortgages, credit cards, car loans, insurance premiums, etc. The reason they take one or more business days to clear is that the transactions are accumulated by each processor in the network during the day and processed as a batch at the end of each business day. The ACH network processes 20+ billion transactions per year worth $40 trillion, (estimates based on 2012 figures).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ce484d7657417c8078f20d1c5295f04", "text": "Since the POS machines are tied into the register it would be rather difficult to overcharge with an attentive patron. They would have to add an additional item onto the purchase in order to increase the total before running the card (very few system allow cashback to be requested from the teller side), and most machines have audible cues every time an item is added. If you are paying attention to the teller and not talking/playing on your phone (or other distracting things) then I would say the feasibility is probably very low. Except for rare exceptions while traveling I only shop at locations where I can see the total on the register, and make sure it looks correct before handing my card over.", "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": "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": "ed46c50e9037426f041b572817397ecf", "text": "I believe there are electronic exchanges that run continuously, but the older ones don't want to change their practices since some people may have strategies which (claim they) are based on this behavior so there would be a lot of unhappy people if it was altered. The pause doesn't seem to do any harm. There are alternatives if you dislike it. Don't try to fix what isn't broken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f931ffbcca461114ddcc1a06355f63b4", "text": "No, they do this to change behavior by providing a disincentive (the stick) - $2 fee - on something they want their customers to do less of. In this case, they want everyone to sign up for automatic billing via CC or bank transfer. Their mistake was to not combine this with a positive incentive (the carrot) on the behavior they want more of. In this case, they should have promised a $2 monthly discount for the first year for customers who switch to automatic billing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c250a05c383c5e3f9f3bceaaa60434", "text": "\"In 2010, the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act was passed, which prohibited certain activities, most of which had to do with online sites sharing your CC info with third parties. However, the final part of the act deals with \"\"negative option\"\" marketing, which is basically what you're describing - \"\"We will charge you unless you say no\"\". It requires three components to allow a negative option: If you did not explicitly enroll in automatic payment, and made the initial purchase online (or made your most recent purchase online, I suspect) then it sounds like this was a violation of this act. On the other hand, the act isn't terribly careful about defining terms, and is really quite vague in a lot of places, so it's possible they would argue they are not using a 'negative option' scheme but instead simply charging your bill similar to how your phone company might use autopay. If it was not online, then this probably doesn't apply. Instead, the FTC's rule on Negative Option with regard to sale of goods applies. Title 16 Part 425 covers this; this law is much less limiting as to what the marketer can do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4c73d42a968f194ea662dec8eeda100", "text": "The main risk I see to this plan is with a late payment to your credit card. For a variety of reasons, some outside your control, you could end up with a late payment on the CC and a +18% interest rate making your arbitrage attempts unprofitable. You sense that this is risky, and it derives from placing short-term risk on a long term asset. Your interest rate is high for the current market. What kind of things can you do reduce that rate? What kind of things can you do to reduce your principle? Those kind of things represent far less risk and accomplish the same goal.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52ab18a2a7ca03e479b2e9b8ed29d002", "text": "You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d21b3746e0c66b39ff8538ccd42fcd", "text": "\"Owning more than 50% of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one \"\"class\"\" at a time, with three or four \"\"classes.\"\" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. \"\"A\"\" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and \"\"B\"\" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the \"\"A\"\" shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f27920a96da3bee8da7e7f98c9a00d8", "text": "\"I believe Tom Au answered your key question. Let me just add in response to, \"\"What if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company?\"\" This happens all the time. Bob Senior is a brilliant business man, he starts a company, it is wildly successful, then he dies and Bob Junior inherits the company. (If it's a privately owned company he may inherit it directly; if it's a corporation he inherits a controlling interest in the stock.) Bob Junior knows nothing about how to run a business. And so he mismanages the company, runs it into the ground, and eventually it goes bankrupt. Stock holders lose their investment, employees lose their jobs, and in general everyone is very unhappy. I suppose it also happens that someone gets rich doing thing A and then decides that he's going to buy a business that does thing B. He has no idea how to run a business doing thing B and he destroys the company. I can't think of any specific examples of this off the top of my head, but I've heard of it happening with people who make a ton of money as actors or professional athletes and then decide to start a business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11e1ebe3d71db1e3366bbc19928f5024", "text": "\"The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so \"\"if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company\"\" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0781346fa724fd4cdd54d85a61f25b62", "text": "I almost agree. I am not completely sure about the ownership of stock, but to have the majority ownership of any company you must own more than 50% of a company's outstanding shares. Although a board in majority, could out vote a majority shareholder in most cases depending on the company policy regarding shareholders and the general law of the country, and to how the company is managed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "928598067c978d7ba6b404631e154c70", "text": "The person holding the majority of shares can influence the decisions of the company. Even though the shareholder holds majority of the shares,the Board of Directors appointed by the shareholders in the Annual General Meeting will run the company. As said in the characteristics of the company,the owners and the administrators of the company are different. The shareholder holding majority of the shares can influence the business decisions like appointing the auditor,director etc. and any other business decisions(not taken in the ordinary business) that are taken in the Annual General Meeting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12693d5ab42b95c35af04f25645e47be", "text": "It is also worth noting that one of the character defining features of a publicly traded company is that the management that is responsible for the day to day operations of the stands independent of those who have ownership. Shareholder of a public company typically don't have influence over the day to day running of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6bc779bbc88c442ac003d44cff045a", "text": "You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.", "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": "8fc999cb123d1fab5d8a6d8bcfd798b5", "text": "I believe you can easily make tresholds for what constitute a partial owner. If I work for GE and buy a share, I'm not exactly a partial owner. Anything under 10% for companies making, I don't know, less than 50 Mil in revenue, you're an employee. Larger companies, 5%. That's just an idea, could be refined but, yeah...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eba0ee9b9ecd19532789be1d9146812", "text": "\"I find the question interesting, but it's beyond an intelligent answer. Say what you will about Jim Cramer, his advice to spend \"\"an hour per month on each stock\"\" you own appears good to me. But it also limits the number of stocks you can own. Given that most of us have day jobs in other fields, you need to decide how much time and education you can put in. That said, there's a certain pleasure in picking stocks, buying a company that's out of favor, but your instinct tells you otherwise. For us, individual stocks are about 10% of total portfolio. The rest is indexed. The amount that \"\"should be\"\" in individual stocks? None. One can invest in low cost funds, never own shares of individual stocks, and do quite well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89d2a641744984e2edbf16e4a5d12d4", "text": "Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd094d8b9bc86136ff451df39877fe4a", "text": "There is a fundemental misunderstanding: the business and the owner are not the same entity. You said: I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business. That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account. A more simple example is when you buy a car. The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business. He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business. In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K. However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business. Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate. Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c", "text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "184e33992f587192ee5f6cbe68a089b5", "text": "Depends on the structure of the company and what shares are outstanding. If the pink sheet stock has no voting power then buying all that stock doesn't get you any control at all. On the other hand, if the outstanding shares only represent 20% of the company's overall shares, then buying all the shares isn't likely enough to have a controlling interest. Thus, you'll have to dig into the details. If you want an example of where I'd have my doubts, look at Nestle's stock which has the ticker of NSRGY. There can be companies that are structured with stock on multiple exchanges that can also be a challenge at times. There is also something to be said if you own enough stock in a company that this has to be disclosed to the SEC when you buy more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d05dee1feed3d605a45f0576e8a43dbd", "text": "\"It works if after the price has halved and you buy more the price then rises, however if you are attempting to do this you are basing you \"\"doubling down\"\" on hope, and if you are basing a purchase on hope you are gambling. In many cases if the price has halved it could be because there is something very wrong with the company, so the price could easly half again. In that case it hasn't worked. You are better off waiting to see if the company makes a turn around and starts improving. Wait for confirmation that the stock price is heading back up before buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90aba0d9207276fd2fe9e3902a3e306", "text": "\"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% \"\"free money\"\" they're giving you. Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to \"\"double down\"\" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b32701eca361387d32f57d1bcda9f2b7", "text": "I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1a7b146aee22e84eaa261388f7d56b0", "text": "\"As a TL;DR version of JAGAnalyst's excellent answer: the buying company doesn't need every last share; all they need is to get 51% of the voting bloc to agree to the merger, and to vote that way at a shareholder meeting. Or, if they can get a supermajority (90% in the US), they don't even need a vote. Usually, a buying company's first option is a \"\"friendly merger\"\"; they approach the board of directors (or the direct owners of a private company) and make a \"\"tender offer\"\" to buy the company by purchasing their controlling interest. The board, if they find the offer attractive enough, will agree, and usually their support (or the outright sale of shares) will get the company the 51% they need. Failing the first option, the buying company's next strategy is to make the same tender offer on the open market. This must be a public declaration and there must be time for the market to absorb the news before the company can begin purchasing shares on the open market. The goal is to acquire 51% of the total shares in existence. Not 51% of market cap; that's the number (or value) of shares offered for public trading. You could buy 100% of Facebook's market cap and not be anywhere close to a majority holding (Zuckerberg himself owns 51% of the company, and other VCs still have closely-held shares not available for public trading). That means that a company that doesn't have 51% of its shares on the open market is pretty much un-buyable without getting at least some of those private shareholders to cash out. But, that's actually pretty rare; some of your larger multinationals may have as little as 10% of their equity in the hands of the upper management who would be trying to resist such a takeover. At this point, the company being bought is probably treating this as a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". They have options, such as: However, for companies that are at risk of a takeover, unless management still controls enough of the company that an overruling public stockholder decision would have to be unanimous, the shareholder voting body will often reject efforts to activate these measures, because the takeover is often viewed as a good thing for them; if the company's vulnerable, that's usually because it has under-performing profits (or losses), which depresses its stock prices, and the buying company will typically make a tender offer well above the current stock value. Should the buying company succeed in approving the merger, any \"\"holdouts\"\" who did not want the merger to occur and did not sell their stock are \"\"squeezed out\"\"; their shares are forcibly purchased at the tender price, or exchanged for equivalent stock in the buying company (nobody deals in paper certificates anymore, and as of the dissolution of the purchased company's AOI such certs would be worthless), and they either move forward as shareholders in the new company or take their cash and go home.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b204b1ac56d47235c85b96f0a5a43c4", "text": "Does Coke count as one of his operating businesses though? He's the biggest shareholder but wikipedia says it's around 26%. There are some other huge cash cows in there as well; BNSF Railroad's earnings were like $3.5 billion last year, and Berkshire own 100% of the business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "764546861d56bdb5f695573a8b26477b", "text": "When you own a share, you also own a vote (in most cases). That vote is your means of controlling the assets and management of the company. If you had enough votes and wanted to trade a share for an iPhone or liquidate the company entirely, you could do it. The only thing that prevents you from doing that is that companies are not set up to handle the transaction that way. Stock holders are usually trying to buy investments, not iPhones. There are companies that have more cash in the bank than the market cap (total value) of their stock. They usually don't remain as public companies for long in that case. An investor or group of investors buy them up and split the cash. If you had enough shares of Apple, you could do that to; or, just trade one for an iPhone.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75423c42d7f054dc33f42d982df55afc", "text": "Only if you sell the stock in question, and use the proceeds to buy other stock. (You should probably never feel bad about selling your company stock, even if it goes up a lot later, because from a risk-exposure basis you are already exposed to your company's performance through your career. Unless you have a lot of other savings, you should diversify.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b690c669a900ba8cb6e625b06c76349b", "text": "I do not know for sure so do not quote me on this. But I would assume that you will get paid out to what the value of the buyout is. Example if your company has 100 private shares and you own 1 share (1%), and the company sells for $1,000,000. Your share will be worth 1% of the $1 million.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bb0c5c46cfaa2d01754b7181fb667bda", "text": "\"Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Not normally.* The stock market as a whole, on average, increases in value over time. So if we make the claim that the market is a zero-sum game, and you only make money if other people lose money, that idea is not sustainable. There aren't that many people that would keep investing in something only to continue to lose money to the \"\"winners.\"\" The stock market, and the companies inside it, grow in value as the economy grows. And the economy grows as workers add value with their work. Here's an analogy: I can buy a tree seed for very little and plant it in the ground. If I do nothing more, it probably won't grow, and it will be worth nothing. However, by taking the time to water it, fertilize it, weed it, prune it, and harvest it, I can sell the produce for much more than I purchased that seed for. No one lost money when I sell it; I increased the value by adding my effort. If I sell that tree to a sawmill, they can cut the tree into usable lumber, and sell that lumber at a profit. They added their efforts and increased the value. A carpenter can increase the value even further by making something useful (a door, for example). A retail store can make that door more useful by transporting it to a location with a buyer, and a builder can make it even more useful by installing it on a house. No one lost any money in any of these transactions. They bought something valuable, and made it more valuable by adding their effort. Companies in the stock market grow in value the same way. A company will grow in value as its employees produce things. An investor provides capital that the company uses to be able to produce things**, and as the company grows, it increases in value. As the population increases and more workers and customers are born, and as more useful things are invented, the economy will continue to grow as a whole. * Certainly, it is possible, even common, to profit from someone else's loss. People lose money in the stock market all the time. But it doesn't have to be this way. The stock market goes up, on average, over the long term, and so long term investors can continue to make money in the market even without profiting from others' failures. ** An investor that purchases a share from another investor does not directly provide capital to the company. However, this second investor is rewarding the first investor who did provide capital to the company. This is the reason that the first investor purchased in the first place; without the second investor, the first would have had no reason to invest and provide the capital. Relating it to our tree analogy: Did the builder who installed the door help out the tree farmer? After all, the tree farmer already sold the tree to the sawmill and doesn't care what happens to it after that. However, if the builder had not needed a door, the sawmill would have had no reason to buy the tree.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e", "text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6828c8aac1235a11ea839878bf006177", "text": "\"Because I feel the answers given do not wholely represent the answer you are expecting, I'd like to re-iterate but include more information. When you own stock in a company, you OWN some of that company. When that company makes profit, you usually receive a dividend of those profits. If you owned 1% of the company stock, you (should) recieve 1% of the profits. If your company is doing well, someone might ask to buy your stock. The price of that stock is (supposed) to be worth a value representative of the expected yield or how much of a dividend you'd be getting. The \"\"worth\"\" of that, is what you're betting on when you buy the stock, if you buy $100 worth of coca cola stock and they paid $10 as dividend, you'd be pretty happy with a 10% growth in your wealth. Especially if the banks are only playing 3%. So maybe some other guy sees your 10% increase and thinks, heck.. 10% is better than 3%, if I buy your stocks, even as much as 6% more than they are worth ($106) I'm still going to be better off by that extra 1% than I would be if I left it in the bank.. so he offers you $106.. and you think.. awesome.. I can sell my $100 of cola shares now, make a $6 profit and buy $100 worth of some other share I think will pay a good dividend. Then cola publicises their profits, and they only made 2% profit, that guy that bought your shares for $106, only got a dividend of $2 (since their 'worth' is still $100, and effectively he lost $4 as a result. He bet on a better than 10% profit, and lost out when it didn't hit that. Now, (IMHO) while the stock market was supposed to be about buying shares, and getting dividends, people (brokers) discovered that you could make far more money buying and selling shares for 'perceived value' rather than waiting for dividends to show actual value, especially if you were not the one doing the buying and selling (and risk), but instead making a 0.4% cut off the difference between each purchase (broker fees). So, TL;DR, Many people have lost money in the market to those who made money from them. But only the traders and gamblers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50a1ec0c43de99a3a1f96176f3529abe", "text": "The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a71675b9836aa15aa4c731de5b111055", "text": "Just because your slice of pie gets bigger doesn't necessarily mean someone else's becomes smaller. In a lot of cases it's the entire pie that gets bigger. Why is the pie bigger? More investors (savers turn investors; foreign investments, etc.), more money printed (QE anyone?), Market sentiment changes (stock is priced by perceptions) And it can certainly get smaller.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f07ac4680194626215deef6479418a33", "text": "\"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d418477f6f1ff8bf0e3e14b2082fe6", "text": "Day traders see a dip, buy stocks, then sell them 4 mins later when the value climbed to a small peak. What value is created? Is the company better off from that trade? The stocks were already outside of company hands, so the trade doesn't affect them at all. You've just received money from others for no contribution to society. A common scenario is a younger business having a great idea but not enough capital funds to actually get the business going. So, investors buy shares which they can sell later on at a higher value. The investor gets value from the shares increasing over time, but the business also gets value of receiving money to build the business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39a848a90a40001a3be0c299807ab126", "text": "\"In gambling, the house also takes a cut, so the total money in the game is shrinking by 2-10 percent. So if you gain $100, it's because other people lost $105, and you do this for dozens of plays, so it stacks up. The market owns companies who are trying to create economic value - take nothing and make it something. They usually succeed, and this adds to the total pot and makes all players richer regardless of trades. Gambling is transactional, there's a \"\"pull\"\" or a \"\"roll\"\" or a \"\"hand\"\", and when it's over you must do new transactions to continue playing. Investing parks your money indefinitely, you can be 30 years in a stock and that's one transaction. And given the long time, virtually all your gains will be new economic value created, at no one else's expense, i.e. Nobody loses. Now it's possible to trade in and out of stocks very rapidly, causing them to be transactional like gambling: the extreme example is day-trading. When you're not in a stock long enough for the company to create any value (paid in dividends or the market appreciating the value), then yes, for someone to gain, someone else must lose. And the house takes a cut (e.g. Etrade's $10 trading fee in and out). In that case both players are trying to win, and one just had better info on average. Another case is when the market drops. For instance right after Brexit I dumped half my domestic stocks and bought Euro index funds. I gambled Euro stocks would rebound better than US stocks would continue to perform. Obviously, others were counterbetting that American stocks will still grow more than Euro will rebound. Who won that gamble? Certainly we will all do better long-term, but some of us will do better-er. And that's what it's all about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df968b0dad2a0f72bf0e625b8d5e3fa0", "text": "\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4c6e5916ea50d892d8f3e18ae1777d2", "text": "Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? Sometimes. If the market goes down, and someone sells -- on a panic, perhaps, or nervousness -- at a loss, if you have extra cash then you can buy that stock on the hope/expectation that its value will rise.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7885461d2f4f9593513df4f245d4d883", "text": "\"I understand you make money by buying low and selling high. You can also make money by buying high and selling higher, short selling high and buying back low, short selling low and buying back even lower. An important technique followed by many technical traders and investors is to alway trade with the trend - so if the shares are trending up you go long (buy to open and sell to close); if the shares are trending down you go short (sell to open and buy to close). \"\"But even if the stock price goes up, why are we guaranteed that there is some demand for it?\"\" There is never any guarantees in investing or trading. The only guarantee in life is death, but that's a different subject. There is always some demand for a share or else the share price would be zero or it would never sell, i.e zero liquidity. There are many reasons why there could be demand for a rising share price - fundamental analysis could indicated that the shares are valued much higher than the current price; technical analysis could indicate that the trend will continue; greed could get the better of peoples' emotion where they think all my freinds are making money from this stock so I should buy it too (just to name a few). \"\"After all, it's more expensive now.\"\" What determines if a stock is expensive? As Joe mentioned, was Apple expensive at $100? People who bought it at $50 might think so, but people who bought at $600+ would think $100 is very cheap. On the other hand a penny stock may be expensive at $0.20. \"\"It would make sense if we can sell the stock back into the company for our share of the earnings, but why would other investors want it when the price has gone up?\"\" You don't sell your stocks back to the company for a share of the earnings (unless the company has a share-buy-back arrangement in place), you get a share of the earnings by getting the dividends the company distributes to shareholders. Other investor would want to buy the stock when the price has gone up because they think it will go up further and they can make some money out of it. Some of the reasons for this are explained above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62d2660987fbf0ed6676574ce9a3287c", "text": "There are indeed various strategies to make money from this. As Ben correctly said, the stock price drops correspondingly on the dividend date, so the straightforward way doesn't work. What does work are schemes that involve dividend taxation based on nationality, and schemes based on American Options where people can use market rules to their advantage if some options are not exercised.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840", "text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a26e032ec69dd475378513b87584923a", "text": "The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d3dba315747ed2556b43f997f5e25", "text": "You can make money via stocks in two primary ways: Note that there's no guarantee of either. So it may very well not make you money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd619dbf12a5842646b8f3a2a387df3e", "text": "\"The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest \"\"at random\"\", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to \"\"investing at random\"\". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade \"\"at random\"\", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd0b25899dfe8a0d7965310d6cfc769b", "text": "Playing the markets is simple...always look for the sucker in the room and outsmart him. Of course if you can't tell who that sucker is it's probably you. If the strategy you described could make you rich, cnbc staff would all be billionaires. There are no shortcuts, do your research and decide on a strategy then stick to it in all weather or until you find a better one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47924d77851cc791bfe47086512ad691", "text": "The earlier answers answered the question on how a more practical trader can lose money. Here I'd like to mention some obtuse ways Using debt to buy stocks. If one is borrowing at a higher rate than they are getting back, from an economics prospective their stocks are losing money even if the value of those stocks are going up. Using debt to buy stocks. I'll simplify the nightmare situation. I know someone who has Y dollars of cash. Their broker will loan them X. With their X+Y money, they purchase some equities through the broker. The agreement of the loan is that if the value of those equities drops below a certain percentage of the outstanding debt (ex 150%), the broker will automatically and without notification, sell some equities indiscriminately to reduce the outstanding debt. Being in high-interest debt but buying stocks. There are millions of people who are paying 15+% interest rates on consumer debt while investing and getting 5% returns or less on average. Similar to an earlier point, from an economics prospective the choice to buy equities is a profit losing choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc5eee7dc69b5b6abe644a127fc97e84", "text": "I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c", "text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a0d87b28f8b8554b0c9302b8b5f6ff", "text": "\"No, an entrepreneur actually adds value, whereas stock ownership does not. Buying stocks is akin to gambling, except with different rules and an average positive return over time, whereas normal casino gambling always has a net negative result on average. To put it shortly: If it doesn't make a difference whether its you or John from across the corner doing the action, then its basically a speculation with \"\"investment\"\" as an alias. You're merely the purse. If you are involved in the running of the project, taking decisions, organizing, putting your time and creativity in, then you're an entrepreneur. In this case, its clear to see that different persons will have different results, so they matter as persons and not just as purses. Note that if you buy enough stock to actually have a say in the running of the company, then you're crossing the threshold there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31a82b7ed7528351a9da8c523b16833e", "text": "\"Surprising that you have a \"\"finance background,\"\" but don't know what a cold-calling broker does - he calls people he's never met and tries to bullshit them into buying stock or making some other trade. You can call people from contact lists obtained from marketing firms, people who hopefully fit a certain income and age bracket best suited to investing. For some people it's ok, for others it's complete hell. If you fall into the latter category, your salary being based on how much trading you generate every month can make it even worse. If you want an idea of cold-calling, call 100 people today at random from the phonebook and try to convince them that they need to buy something.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766ba9a0a0e7c1d6325b6344da388fe8", "text": "If you buy a stock and it goes up, you can sell it and make money. But if you buy a stock and it goes down, you can lose money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5660775a39f180ceab7a8dbd3255f8b4", "text": "Fake stock market trading may teach you about trading, which isn't necessarily the same thing as investing. I think you need to understand how things work and how to read financial news and statistics before you start trading. Otherwise, you're just going to get frustrated when you mysteriously win and lose funny money. I'd suggest a few things: Also, don't get into individual stocks until you have at least $5k to invest -- focus on saving and use ETFs or mutual funds. You should always invest in around a half dozen diversified stocks at a time, and doing that with less than $1,000 a stock will make it impossible to trade and make money -- If a $100 stock position goes up 20%, you haven't cleared enough to pay your brokerage fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3965ebcc47d710ff6853b5136b318382", "text": "\"The seriousness of your situation depends on whether your girlfriend was owed a refund for each tax return she failed to file, or whether she owed additional money. If she owed money on one or more of the tax returns she failed to file, stop! It is time to consult a lawyer. At the very least, you need to contact an accountant who specialises in this sort of thing. She will owe interest and penalties, and may be liable for criminal prosecution. There are options available and lawyers who specialise in this sort of thing (e.g. this one, from a simple google search). If she is in this position, you need professional help and you need it soon, so you can make a voluntary disclosure and head off criminal prosecution. Assuming the taxes are fairly simple, you are likely looking at a few thousand dollars, but probably less than $7,500, for professional help. There will be substantial penalties assessed as well, for any taxes owing. If you wait until the CRA starts proceedings, you are most likely looking at $10,000 to $50,000, assuming the matter is not too complicated, and would be facing the possibility of a jail term not exceeding five years. If she was due a refund on every single one of the tax returns she failed to file, or at least if she did not owe additional money, you are probably in a situation you can deal with yourself. She will want to file all of the tax returns as soon as possible, but will not be assessed a penalty. I have personally filed taxes several months late a number of times, when I was owed a refund. You may still want to consider professional help, but it is probably not necessary. Under no circumstances should she allow her father near her finances again, ever. You should also be careful to trust any responses to this question, including my response, because we are unlikely to be professional accountants (I certainly am not). You are well outside the abilities of an H&R Block \"\"accountant\"\" in this matter and need a real certified accountant and/or a lawyer who specialises in Failure To File cases.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22e3750962b1dcc273e770bbe1ba72f9", "text": "Not authoritative, but according to TurboTax: If your new cell phone acts as both your business and personal phone, you are only allowed to deduct the portion used for business from your taxable income. It’s important for you to hang on to your itemized phone bill and receipts to ensure that you’re deducting the right amounts and to keep records of your deduction. Since the usage you're describing sounds like a very small amount of the overall usage, it will probably be difficult to justify a business expense deduction.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ced865df0eb2464f46ff31ca887ed471", "text": "I don't know about the US, but in the UK this is common practice, even required in some situations, and not sketchy at all. It's perfectly legal, saves you tax, and protects you from a legal standpoint. (i.e. what if you break something and your employer wants to sue you?) This is what companies are for, they are legal entities that are separate from an individual. There is no requirement for a company to have more than one employee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f956ceffea10cf1a8713a8abe3f7e1", "text": "It was a requirement that they call my current employer. It wasn't reference necessarily, but for background check purposes. I'm assuming they're calling to verify I work there and what my salary is. Still gonna put me in an awkward spot. Edit grammar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd9d6222e82856f130a83bc721ee146", "text": "Employee badges are designed to track your location. If you don't want your activities within a company to be tracked, you wouldn't be able to work for many companies. I don't understand why you think you deserve the same privacy at work that you get at home. My transit card has a microchip. Do you seriously think it does anything other than perform transit transactions?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d77ab23210a7114e701f2903f115c064", "text": "This article is misleading in it's universality of its findings. It does have a control group, which is a good start, but the findings are based on call-center employees whose functions are almost perfectly suited for remote work. In a way, we already knew this because of how much call-center work is outsourced and outside of provincial management (in other words, most companies don't bother housing customer service call centers at company headquarters). Let's see them try to replicate those results with other industries. Treating the ability to work from home as a panacea is just as foolish as believing that workers can't ever be remote. The truth is that individual personalities and, more importantly, an individual's work functions are better suited for remote work than others and it takes good management to understand why they take the strategy they take with regards to remote work. All in all, the study might be a good case study for encouraging remote work among call-center employees, but any further extrapolation of that for other industries is going to be a baseless claim influenced by personal agendas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "775f0b2a72dec76818a9d6dcc47ad895", "text": "\"IT actually doesn't have the issue with the charg enumber thing because the Manhour allocation charge covers IT support so we don't bill our time out. It is mostly just people who work direct for projects that pull the \"\"give me a charge number\"\" business. Also, it isn't everyone either. Mostly just the douchebags. Additionally, a department policy like you suggest actually sounds like a great Idea. I think I like you. However, in a company our size, it would get abused more than it would be respected. Great programs and policies like that always get bombed in my company because of a a 20% group of dickbags.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7a3cbe87c7d49cdb8cc02b7f7fdec32", "text": "\"You're getting paid by the job, not by the hour, so I don't see why you think the employer is obligated to pay you for the drive time. The only way that might be true, as far as I can see, is if he were avoiding paying you minimum wage by structuring your employment this way. It looks like to me you're over the minimum wage based on what you wrote. At maximum \"\"unpaid\"\" drive time (59 min each way) and maximum length of job (4 hours as you stated it), gives your minimum hourly rate of $8.83/hr. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, so you're over that. A quick search online suggests that NV does have a higher minimum at $8.25/hr under some conditions, but you're still over that too. The fact that you're required to pick-up the helpers and that you have a company car at home probably does mean that you're \"\"on the clock\"\" from the moment that you leave your house, but, again, you're not actually being paid by the clock. As long as no other law is being broken (and it appears from your telling that there isn't), then the employer can set any policy for how to compute the compensation that he wants. Regarding taxes, the employer probably has no discretion there. You're making what you're making, and the employer needs to tax it in total. Since you're driving a company vehicle from home, I don't think that you're entitled to any reimbursement (vs. wages) that would not be taxed unless maybe you pay for gas yourself. The gas money, if applicable, should be reimbursable as a business expense and that generally would not be taxed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a57851d680f06d0d027cbc370f7c762e", "text": "I contacted Stephen Fishman, J.D., the author of Home Business Tax Deductions, to let him know that this question was missing from his book. He was kind enough to send a reply. My original phrasing of the question: If your car is used for both business and personal use, and you deduct via the actual expense method, do trips to the mechanic, gas station, and auto parts store to service or repair the car count as business miles, personal miles, or part-business-part-personal miles? What about driving the newly-purchased car home from the dealership? And his response: Good question. I can find nothing about this in IRS publication or elsewhere. However, common sense would tell us that the cost of driving to make car repairs should be deductible. If you use your car for business, it is a business expense, just like transporting any other piece of business equipment for repairs is a business expense. This should be so whether you use the standard mileage rate or actual expense method. You should probably reduce the amount of your deduction by the percentage of personal use of the car during the year. The same goes for driving a car home from the dealer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109c4d456f41fd860526feb85481d9ae", "text": "\"Can she claim deductions for her driving to and from work? Considering most people use their cars mostly to commute to/from work, there must be limits to what you can consider \"\"claimable\"\" and what you can't, otherwise everyone would claim back 80% of their mileage. No, she can't. But if she's driving from one work site to another, that's deductible whether or not either of the work sites is her home office. Can she claim deductions for her home office? There's a specific set of IRS tests you have to meet. If she meets them, she can. If you're self-employed, reasonably need an office, and have a place in your house dedicated to that purpose, you will likely meet all the tests. Can I claim deductions for my home office, even though I have an official work place that is not in my home? It's very hard to do so. The use of your home office has to benefit your employer, not just you. Can we claim deductions for our home internet service? If the business or home office uses them, they should be a deductible home office expense in some percentage. Usually for generic utilities that benefit the whole house, you deduct at the same percentage as the home office is of the entire house. But you can use other fractions if more appropriate. For example, if you have lots of computers in the home office, you can deduct more of the electricity if you can justify the ratio you use. Run through the rules at the IRS web page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ffc053007a9ea1a3cda7308b5c4f0ae", "text": "Yup. I scrutinize the income statement I receive from my employer every year. What I make vs what the company actually invests in me as an employee is really astounding. Beyond my hourly wage, the company pays for my health insurance premium (all but $10/check), and pays for a medical flex-spending account. On top of this (I know this isn't taxes but it's still an expense and government sanctioned) if I do some dumbass thing to get myself hurt at work, they'd pay all medical bills since it happened on their property. We recently had a bit of a wake-up call this summer, as the board of directors warned everyone that the current medical plan our company provides to us is not sustainable, and will have to undergo changes (we're going to either start paying for our premiums, decrease our flex accounts, or charge smokers additional fees) beginning Jan 1st. Lots of people are complaining about this. I don't think they're aware of the horde of expenses and fees that the company swallows for them in other ways. There's property taxes, business income taxes, excise taxes, customs/duty taxes, state taxes... along with meeting the restrictions and standards of certain governmental agencies (like OSHA). I don't know how a small business owner could ever maintain control over all of this financial mess and be able to help their customers or other employees. There's OSHA, a profit-seeking (through citations) business now, instead of a partner and ally to businesses. A typical 'violation' is $70K, and a 'repeat' violation is $140K. Imagine running a small grocery store, and having to pay this fine because you accidentally had a piece of styrofoam lying on top of a cooler not built to withstand overhead weight. Or because someone wasn't wearing safety shoes in the store. You'd simply go out of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9f6015acf220676c78c716f3c0cc596", "text": "Last I checked, all business expenses in regards to * Office Supplies * Stationary * Phone service * Marketing are all tax deductible....so how does cutting those costs save money when you'll get that money back via the corporate tax code?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1899f1beb3489aaa8ad20620833f72b0", "text": "\"I am guessing you are being downvoted by people who wish they had two devices. The reason being: When your personal phone is your work phone, you are always on call. Quite frankly, that sucks. Give me two separate phones any day. If people need to contact you during the work day, they call your work line. If people from work need to contact you after work, too bad, that shitty work smartphone \"\"ran out of power\"\" around 5pm ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad2b983f9544f2d6e14dae0788a9a541", "text": "Nope sorry guest you are wrong. how can salary and an expense be on the same side of the ledger? Salary 2000 Personal bank 2000 Phone expenses 30 Personal bank 30", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2f9b8faa0d16414f9b1f39f9b0199f3", "text": "I think it depends on who is being paid for your app. Do you have a company the is being paid? Or is it you personally? If you have a company then that income will disappear by offsetting it through expenses to get the software developed. If they are paying you personally then you can probably still get the income to disappear by file home-office expenses. I think either way you need to talk to an accountant. If you don't want to mess with it since the amount of income is small then I would think you can file it as additional income (maybe a 1099).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66a9866d6915d9857107b5c21a99d9c1", "text": "Yea I'm super confused about why this is being touted as some revenge fantasy on corporate overlords, or something. She was hired to do a job, got paid to do it, and was no longer required to do the job. I don't still get residual paychecks from my first job out of college, and they don't get to call me up and ask me to do a process analysis- I did my job and now I do another one (for someone else). What obligation does an organization have to an employee beyond a paycheck....?", "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": "5938b4fa65cfd89f3ab79fcaa8841dc8", "text": "\"No. One of the key ideas behind a corporation is that an investor's liability is limited to the amount he invests, i.e. the amount of stock he buys. This is the primary reason why small businesses become corporations, even though one person owns 100% of the stock. Then if the business goes broke, he won't lose his house, retiretment fund, etc. He'll lose everything he had in the business, but at least there's a limit to it. (In some countries there are other ways to achieve the same results, like creating a \"\"limited liabililty company\"\", but that's another story.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18a0ebdd505f1bbcec3d7ff88ceaf59", "text": "\"No, assuming by \"\"public company\"\" you mean a corporation. The shareholder's individual liability is limited to their investment. Your shares can go to zero value, but that's the limit. EDIT In regard to the follow-up question in the comments: \"\"Are all companies in the stock market corporations?\"\" the answer is definitely \"\"no.\"\" I cannot say much about other countries, but the US markets have some entities which are known as \"\"master limited partnerships.\"\" These trade shares on the market by the usual rules, but if you buy you become a partner in the company rather than a shareholder. You still have limited liability in this case, but there will be differences, for example, in how you're are taxed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b000a8ad21e9fee49dcdf5d184e5642", "text": "The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e01f4693da28ecd3ef88fbcc7b66c1", "text": "\"Not normally, for a limited liability company anyway. In extreme circumstances a court may \"\"lift the veil\"\" of incorporation and treat shareholders as if they were partners. If you are an office bearer or a director that is found to have breached duties/responsibiities then that is another matter. Dim views can be taken of shonky arrangents for companies formed for activites not of a bona fide business nature too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89806c12767e3ceb53f7abd1658aa490", "text": "\"I am a tax lawyer and ALL the RESPONSES ABOVE are 1/2 Correct but also 1/2 Wrong and in tax law this means 100% WRONG (BECAUSE ANY PART INCORRECT UNDER TAX LAW will get YOU A HUGE PENALY and/or PRISON TIME by way of the IRS! So in ESSENCE ALL the above answers are WRONG! Let me enlighten you to the correct answer in 5 parts, as people that do not practice tax law may understand (but you still probably will not understand, if you are NOT a Lawyer). 1) All public companies are corporations (shown by Ltd.), 2) only Shareholders of Public companies (ie, traded on the NYSE stock market) are never liable for debts of a bankrupt company, due to the concept of limited liability. 2) now Banks may ask a sole proprietorship (who wants to incorp. for example) to give collateral, such as owners stocks/bonds or his/her house, but then of course the loanee can tell the Bank No Thanks and find a lender that may charge higher interest rates but lend money to his company with little to NO collateral. 3) Of course not all companies are publicly traded and these are called private companies. 4)\"\"limited liability\"\" has nothing to do directly with subsequent shareholders (the above answer is inaccurate!), it RELATES rather to INITIAL OWNERS INVESTMENT in their company, limiting the amount of owner loss if the company goes bankrupt. 5) Share Face-value is usually never related to this as shares are sold at market value in real life instances (above or below face-value), or the most money Investments Banks or owners can fetch for the shares they sell (not what the stock's face-value is set at upon issuance). Never forget, stocks are sold in our Capitalistic System to whomever pays the most, as it is that Buyer who gets to purchase the stock!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "994aa81696600e5c80d2c0239d115c77", "text": "In an open corporation scenario a stock holder may well be found liable. It's a very narrow and uncommon bunch of scenarios but it's well worth sharing. See the paragraph on open corporations in the following document: http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/businessLaw/RightsOfShareholders/LiabilityOfShareholders.asp", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7f0b2035b9854c22bee04b280dbc32aa", "text": "You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first. Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too. It's not just corporations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79f21f915d96f4657dbefa524ea5e1e0", "text": "Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f59adcc7b987d2178c95cf63fd19f0e", "text": "*sigh* So I guess you don't understand why they would care about no risk.... If the sub company fails, but had no debt, then the parent company only loses whatever money they invested in the sub company If the sub company fails and had debt: The parent company is responsible for those debts and must pay them if in the agreement with the bank the parent company is responsible. The parent company is not responsible for those debts if in the agreement with the banks, they did not agree to be collateral if the sub company went bankrupt. Not likely that a bank would agree to this though. They might even try to sue the parent company so they could get some reimbursement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871ee400fd4484f5018511b91dcb9298", "text": "> If the investor is a partner in the company then they're just as responsible for the debts of their business as any other partner. Umm, one of the benefits of creating a corporation is to keep personal money separate from the business. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/corporation-basics-29867.html There are exceptions to that of course. > The registered owners of the company can also be held liable for it's debts if it's a corporation. This is false. Baring in mind that you can prove separation of assets and aren't doing anything illegal. > Or you can always just have them sign as guarantor for your back pay. This is of course one of the exceptions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89dda066ba2eec4f675e094aaa531a4e", "text": "\"First off, the jargon you are looking for is a hedge. A hedge is \"\"an investment position intended to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by a companion investment\"\" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)) The other answers which point out that put options are frequently used as a hedge are correct. However there are other hedging instruments used by financial professionals to mitigate risk. For example, suppose you would really prefer that Foo Corporation not go bankrupt -- perhaps because they own you money (because you're a bondholder) or perhaps because you own them (because you're a stockholder), or maybe you have some other reason for wanting Foo Corp to do well. To mitigate the risk of loss due to bankruptcy of Foo Corp you can buy a Credit Default Swap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap). A CDS is essentially a bet that pays off if Foo Corp goes bankrupt, just as insurance on your house is a bet that pays off if your house burns down. Finally, don't ever forget that all insurance is not just a bet that the bad thing you're insuring against is going to happen, it is also a bet that the insurer is going to pay you if that happens. If the insurer goes bankrupt at the same time as the thing you are insuring goes bad, you're potentially in big trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "977dfe0d410d1c7749d0b38f472c36f9", "text": "It would depend on the bounds of your hypothetical. If the investor group is blind to cost + has infinite money and the existing management is unwilling to comply at any cost, then management will destroy the company before the investor group can take it over. If the existing management follow rational choice theory; then an investment group with unlimited money could take over, hold a special meeting on it, etc. Shareholders can't force management to do anything per se, as management decisions that violate fiduciary duty aren't criminally liable unless the act itself is a crime. So if an investor group were to try a hostile takeover, and Twitter mgmt said we'll see you in hell; then they could just shut down every data center, sell off twitter.com, terminate all the employees, issue a billion new shares, issue every employee a million $0.01 strike warrants, etc. until there's nothing left to take over just to spite them. Defensive strategies get pretty creative and are highly amusing to watch if you don't have a dog in the fight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8268e9706128d119eab6a97dde210f0a", "text": "IANAL. In the UK, you (as a Director) would have obligations to minimise any tax liabilities under these two clauses: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/172 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/174 Although I can't see the CPS bringing any cases of criminal charge against over-payment of taxes. It wouldn't be unrealistic to have a scenario where shareholders of a failed enterprise sued a Director who was negligent in minimising tax liabilities. That said, I think the Starbucks strategy is flagrantly breaching the intent of the law, if not the letter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ebfb0ff79a08dd8776c2fb71f1a5123", "text": "In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56f607bca64522b8754268ef2dbe932a", "text": "Once the business is shut down, you'll need to show that the corporation is in bankruptcy and the amounts are unrecoverable. You can then report it as investment loss. I suggest talking to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State), and maybe an attorney, on what the specific technical details are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7238a79b7b4178cf71c34c008b89d9d", "text": "You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c", "text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b68acfc83ae9ef8c7430c5cd4ceedc3", "text": "\"Generally \"\"default\"\" means that the company cannot pay off their debts, and since debt holders get paid before equity holders, their equity would be effectively worthless. That said, companies can emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) and retain equity value, but it is rare. Most times, stocks are de-listed or frozen on stock exchanges, and company's reorganization plan will cancel all existing equity shares, instead focusing all of their attention on paying back as much debt as possible. If the company issues new equity after reorganizing, it might provide a way for holders of the original equity to exchange their shares for the new equity, but it is rare, and the value is usually significantly less that the value of the original equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebf7f2ffdd88a794594aa313b48eb2d1", "text": "yeah but most likely, it's a 1x liquidation preference. The startup isn't going to generate cash flows enough to pay off the initial investment to the investor. Technically it isn't exactly specified as only triggered on a liquidation event because OP didn't specify the real legal language but it seems likely that's the case. Point 2 is exactly what a liquidation preference is. No way the owner of the company is participating in anything until the investor gets his initial investment back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a41f75249c1d9d408263920982a312c", "text": "\"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf93f14c4c9dbe35734cc4af063d42a", "text": "As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "884ddfb3e4e3765cfb75b301ff9dd45a", "text": "If you're repairing an existing appliance - its an expense. If you're replacing an existing appliance with a new one - that's disposing of one capital asset and putting in service another. You depreciate the new one and you dispose of the old one (if not fully depreciated - talk to your tax adviser how to handle the remaining value). The additional costs of the fixes that are not related to the installation of the new appliance are regular maintenance expenses, so you have to get an itemized invoice from the plumber to know what to expense and what to capitalize.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6832d91bbae329fef6eced1aecf5ac9a", "text": "Pub 527 my friend. It gets depreciated. Table 1-1 on page 5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb65dd7f717ccf993086167319f91fac", "text": "You may be able to choose. As a small business, you can expense certain depreciable assets (section 179). But by choosing to depreciate the asset, you are also increasing the cost-basis of the property. Are you planning to sell the property in the next couple of years? Do you need a higher basis? Section 179 - Election to expense certain depreciable business assets", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2f433e95de68c23d93cf4fae5295ecc2", "text": "You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fff2035f2cc2849e6eba49a486a61c8c", "text": "\"Not sure what you are talking about. The house isn't part of a business so neither of you can deduct half of normal maintenance and repairs. It is just the cost of having a house. The only time this would be untrue is if the thing that you are buying for the house is part of a special deduction or rebate for that tax year. For instance the US has been running rebates and deductions on certain household items that reduce energy - namely insulation, windows, doors, and heating/cooling systems (much more but those are the normal things). And in actuality if your brother is using the entire house as a living quarters you should be charging him some sort of rent. The rent could be up to the current monthly market price of the home minus 50%. If it were my family I would probably charge them what I would pay for a 3% loan on the house minus 50%. Going back to the repairs... Really if these repairs are upgrades and not things caused by using the house and \"\"breaking\"\" or \"\"wearing\"\" things you should be paying half of this, as anything that contributes to the increased property value should be paid for equally if you both are expecting to take home 50% a piece once you sell it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd689b6def8ac021d8eadf33bbcd8b36", "text": "Remember this when you rent. You may get 1,600 back - however, you have to provide insurance on the house still, 10% of that rent goes into a repair fund for things that break. You don't get compensated for months without a renter. You still pay property tax and income tax. If you have someone manage the house, you have to pay their fee (10%+ usually). Lots of variables when renting (I looked into doing the same thing)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "665da3fdf06fdca87eb1d54a26e426fb", "text": "\"Bad areas are tough to value as a owner-occupied property, because the business model for being a slumlord is to rent apartments in absentia, usually to tenants receiving goverment subsidies such as Section 8 vouchers. The vouchers are based on a prevailing rent, which are often on par with nice suburban apartment complexes due to how that \"\"prevailing\"\" rate is calculated. So the value of the house is really an annuity calculation. You figure out the potential rental cash flow and apply whatever your local market premium is. The point is, doing an apples to apples comparison is going to be tough, and justifying the cost of repairs that aren't remediating health and safety issues probably won't be recoverable from a home valuation standpoint. A buyer would probably rip out your central air conditioner and sell it! If I were in your shoes, I'd look at the time horizon that you think you're going to be there and amortize the cost over that period. Assuming your mortgage is small and you're staying for about 5 years, spending $10k costs you about $170 a month. Your reward is a modern A/C and heating system. Compare that cost to the cost of moving and your desires and see if it's worth it to you.\"", "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": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042", "text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "79150c526f9587a5527db7e2fe6c664b", "text": "\"I would not classify utilities (including electric) as additional fees. In many cases you interact directly with the utility (not the landlord) and pay for what you use. There are exceptions like when renting a room. The renter's insurance also is not part of the landlord's profit, it is simply there to protect you. In the case of loss, the landlord cannot insure your property. You have to provide your own insurance. Its pretty low costs, typically less than 20 per month. The application fee is typical. The move in fee is something that could be negotiated away and sounds pretty sketchy. You can always \"\"let your fingers do the walking\"\" and find out the fees before you look at the place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8aaee2278cffb583d47b047c320b68d", "text": "First of all, Dilip's answer explains well how the business deductions generally work. For most (big) expenses you depreciate it. However, in some cases you need to capitalize it, which is another accounting method. When you capitalize your expense, it becomes part of the basis of the product you're creating. Since you're an engineer, this might be relevant for you. Talk to your tax adviser. How exactly you deduct/depreciate/capitalize things, and what expense goes which way depends greatly on the laws and jurisdictions. Even in the US, different states have different laws, and the IRS and State laws don't have to conform (unfortunately). For example, the limitations on Sec. 179 deduction in 2010-2011 were 20 times higher on Federal level than in the State of California. This could have lead to cases where you fully deducted your expense on your Federal tax return, but need to continue and depreciate it on your State return (or vice versa). Good tax adviser is crucial to avoid or manage these cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc0807c84be4f0eee1f29b291d2316d6", "text": "Either way, (lease or buy), it's likely going to be an expense, not a depreciation. You would expense the entire lease amount - whatever that is in the year it was paid. A $2k-$3k computer probably isn't worth the trouble of recording it as a Fixed Asset and depreciating it yearly. I work for a company that buys thousands of PCs a year for its employees and we have a hard rule: If it's under $3k, it's an expense not an asset. If you were buying $20k-$50k servers, this would be a different conversation both because of the price and the life of the item. Because it's such a small amount (unless you really are buying $20k PCs), it doesn't really matter whether it's your biggest expense or not, it's likely just an expense. Though, no one is preventing you from depreciating it over 5 years if you wanted to. See: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/sale-or-trade-of-business-depreciation-rentals/depreciation-recapture/depreciation-recapture In summary: I would say your question is more of a business sense question than a tax question. Is it worth it to you to lease instead of buying because you are getting a new PC so often? Btw: every 2 years is not that often. It's average. Whatever your decision, I think the answer for taxes is the same: Expense it all in the year it was incurred unless you really want to spread it out and depreciate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2f4f176d71865e5de83356df202f85d", "text": "Sticking strictly to the money aspects. I am also assuming United States. The lender will need to know before applying for the loan that the property will be a rental, they may even need to know the scope of the number of renters. Insurance. There are two types you will need to include Income taxes. If you do run a profit you will have taxes. The surprising thing for many first time landlords is that they don't realize that the principal of the loan payment is not considered a deductible expense. Of course there is a benefit to depreciation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3796346d54696bfa1a1766980aa57823", "text": "Both of these terms do refer to your profit; they're just different ways of evaluating it. First, your definition of capitalization rate is flipped. As explained here, it should be: On the other hand, as explained here: So cap rate is like a reverse unit cost approach to comparing two investments. If house A costs $1M and you'll make $50K (profit) from it yearly, and house B costs $1.33M and you'll make $65K (profit) from it yearly, then you can compute cap rates to see that A is a more efficient investment from the point of view of income vs. amount-of-money-you-have-stuck-in-this-investment-and-unavailable-for-use-elsewhere. Profit margin, on the other hand, cares more about your ongoing expenses than about your total investment. If it costs less to maintain property B than it does to maintain property A, then you could have something like: So B is a more efficient investment from the point of view of the fraction of your revenue you actually get to keep each year. Certainly you could think of the property's value as an opportunity cost and factor that into the net profit margin equation to get a more robust estimate of exactly how efficient your investment is. You can keep piling more factors into the equation until you've accounted for every possible facet of your investment. This is what accountants and economists spend their days doing. :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f9cb22a348d006122b9c1cb093de2e7", "text": "You can't compare the different quotes unless they have the same numbers to work with. The big companies should use similar models to come up with values for the contents. In many cases they will assume some standard values for things like appliances. Yes you have a stove, but unless it is commercial grade they won't care when giving you a quote. If you have very expensive items you may need a rider to cover them. There is not relationship between the county assessment and the cost to rebuild. The insurance doesn't cover the land. You have to make sure that all quotes include the same riders: cost to put you in a motel, flood insurance... and the same deductibles. Your state may have an insurance office that can help answer your question. Here is the one for Virginia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5decb6a6d267bdd7e47d67861b736515", "text": "The only card I've seen offer this on credit card purchases is Discover. I think they have a special deal with the stores so that the cash-over amount is not included in the percentage-fee the merchant pays. (The cash part shows up broken-out from the purchase amount on the statement--if this was purely something the store did on its own without some collaboration with Discover that would not happen). The first few times I've seen the offer, I assumed it would be treated like a cash-advance (high APR, immediate interest with no grace period, etc.), but it is not. It is treated like a purchase. You have no interest charge if you pay in full during the grace period, and no transaction fee. Now I very rarely go to the ATM. What is in it for Discover? They have a higher balance to charge you interest on if you ever fail to pay in full before the grace period. And Discover doesn't have any debit/pin option that I know of, so no concern of cannibalizing their other business. And happier customers. What is in it for the grocer? Happier customers, and they need to have the armored car come around less often and spend less time counting drawers internally.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "52d826b925842aa604e0b295fcd54608", "text": "\"No, the stock market is not there for speculation on corporate memorabilia. At its base, it is there for investing in a business, the point of the investment being, of course, to make money. A (successful) business earns money, and that makes it valuable to its owners since that money can be distributed to them. Shares of stock are pieces of business ownership, and so are valuable. If you knew that the business would have profit of $10,000,000 every year, and would distribute that to the owners of each of its 10,000,000 shares each year, you would know to that each share would receive $1 each year. How much would such a share be worth to you? If you could instead put money in a bank and get 5% a year back, to get $1 a year back you would have to put $20 into the bank. So maybe that share of stock is worth about $20 to you. If somebody offers to sell you such a share for $18, you might buy it; for $23, maybe you pass up the offer. But business is uncertain, and how much profit the business will make is uncertain and will vary through time. So how much is a share of a real business worth? This is a much harder call, and people use many different ways to come up with how much they should pay for a share. Some people probably just think something like \"\"Apple is a good company making money, I'll buy a share at whatever price it is being offered at right now.\"\" Others look at every number available, build models of the company and the economy and the risks, all to estimate what a share might be worth, more or less. There is no indisputable value for a share of a successful business. So, what effect does a company's earnings have on the price of its stock? You can only say that for some of the people who might buy or sell shares, higher earnings will, all other thing being equal, have them be willing to spend more to buy it or demand more when selling it. But how much more is not quantifiable but depends on each person's approach to the problem. Higher earnings would tend to raise the price of the stock. Yet there are other factors, such as people who had expected even higher earnings, whose actions would tend to lower the price, and people who are OK with the earnings now, but suspect trouble for the business is appearing on the horizon, whose actions would also tend to lower the price. This is why people say that a stock's price is determined by supply and demand.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7604afb3ccde436812d42a15983537ec", "text": "A common (and important) measure of a stock's value is the price/earnings ratio, so an increase in earnings will normally cause the stock price to increase. However, the price of the stock is based on a guess of the value of the company some time (6 months?) in the future. So an increase in earnings today probably makes a higher earnings more likely in the future, and puts upward pressure on the price of the stock. There are a lot of other factors in stock prices, such as publicity, dividends, revenue, trends, company stability, and company history. Earnings is a very important factor, but not the only factor determine the value (and so stock price) of a company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "649ef789d568c6c872bfffbf1b6f17af", "text": "Your autograph analogy seems relevant to me. But it is not just speculation. In the long run, investing in stocks is like investing in the economy. In the long run, the economy is expected to grow , hence stock prices are expected to go up. Now in theory: the price of any financial instrument is equal to the net present value today of all the future cash flows from the instrument. So if company's earnings improve, shareholders hope that the earnings will trickle down to them either in form of dividends or in form of capital gain. So they buy the stock, creating demand for it. I can try to explain more if this did not make any sense. :)", "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": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1", "text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1c2620e960c66a3465df030519f8644", "text": "\"It is important to first understand that true causation of share price may not relate to historical correlation. Just like with scientific experiments, correlation does not imply causation. But we use stock price correlation to attempt to infer causation, where it is reasonable to do so. And to do that you need to understand that prices change for many reasons; some company specific, some industry specific, some market specific. Companies in the same industry may correlate when that industry goes up or down; companies with the same market may correlate when that market goes up or down. In general, in most industries, it is reasonable to assume that competitor companies have stocks which strongly correlate (positively) with each-other to the extent that they do the same thing. For a simple example, consider three resource companies: \"\"Oil Ltd.\"\" [100% of its assets relate to Oil]; \"\"Oil and Iron Inc.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Oil, 50% to Iron]; and \"\"Iron and Copper Ltd.\"\" [50% of its value relates to Iron, 50% to Copper]. For each of these companies, there are many things which affect value, but one could naively simplify things by saying \"\"value of a resource company is defined by the expected future volume of goods mined/drilled * the expected resource price, less all fixed and variable costs\"\". So, one major thing that impacts resource companies is simply the current & projected price of those resources. This means that if the price of Oil goes up or down, it will partially affect the value of the two Oil companies above - but how much it affects each company will depend on the volume of Oil it drills, and the timeline that it expects to get that Oil. For example, maybe Oil and Iron Ltd. has no currently producing Oil rigs, but it has just made massive investments which expect to drill Oil in 2 years - and the market expects Oil prices to return to a high value in 2 years. In that case, a drop in Oil would impact Oil Inc. severely, but perhaps it wouldn't impact Oil and Iron Ltd. as much. In this case, for the particular share price movement related to the price of Oil, the two companies would not be correlated. Iron and Copper Ltd. would be unaffected by the price of Oil [this is a simplification; Oil prices impact many areas of the economy], and therefore there would be no correlation at all between this company's shares. It is also likely that competitors face similar markets. If consumer spending goes down, then perhaps the stock of most consumer product companies would go down as well. There would be outliers, because specific companies may still succeed in a falling market, but in generally, there would be a lot of correlation between two companies with the same market. In the case that you list, Sony vs Samsung, there would be some factors that correlate positively, and some that correlate negatively. A clean example would be Blackberry stock vs Apple stock - because Apple's success had specifically negative ramifications for Blackberry. And yet, other tech company competitors also succeeded in the same time period, meaning they did not correlate negatively with Apple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc616ead23979dbfb6b2f964398e6d1", "text": "In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0032eafca184fb6973d7d72b2f60f85", "text": "If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis then the stock price reflects the information known to market participants. Consequently, if the 'market' expected earnings to rise, and they did, then the price won't change. Clearly there are circumstances, especially in the short term and for illiquid stocks, where this isn't true, but a lot of work points to this being the case on average.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc1bf4de61c4935ba16ddaa14ac96f2f", "text": "according to me it's the news about a particular stock which makes people to buy or sell it mostly thus creates a fluctuation in price . It also dependents on the major stock holder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6cb4a956263e8a41ee3791e633b372f", "text": "Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd59a0d6be04b9e7ff8cc04436d98108", "text": "\"What does it mean in terms of share price? Should the share price increase by 15 cents? No, but you're on the right track. In theory, the price of a share reflects it's \"\"share\"\" of time discounted future earnings. To put it concretely, imagine a company consistently earning 15 cents a share every year and paying it all out as dividends. If you only paid 25 cents for it, you could earn five cents a share by just holding it for two years. If you imagine that stocks are priced assuming a holding period of 20 years or so, so we'd expect the stock to cost less than 3 dollars. More accurately, the share price reflects expected future earnings. If everyone is assuming this company is growing earnings every quarter, an announcement will only confirm information people have already been trading based on. So if this 15 cents announcement is a surprise, then we'd expect the stock price to rise as a function of both the \"\"surprise\"\" in earnings, and how long we expect them to stay at this new profitability level before competition claws their earnings away. Concretely, if 5 cents a share of that announcement were \"\"earnings surprise,\"\" you'd expect it to rise somewhere around a dollar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2179472f1459f1f7ec70b6aac3a9d3be", "text": "You are right that Facebook really doesn't get impacted as they got their $38. However it would make it slightly more difficult for Facebook to raise more money in future as large investors would be more cautious. This can keep the price lowers than it actually needs to be. Quite a few companies try to list the IPO at lower price so that it keeps going up and have more positive effect overall there by making it easier for future borrowings. See related question Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a025d389c97e33531f1be1392b2444c3", "text": "\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5607bef00056a09a17bce283bef755b", "text": "Here are some significant factors affect the company stock price performance: Usually, profitability is known to the public through the financial statements; it won't be 100% accurate and people would also trade the stock with the price not matching to the true value of the firm. Still there are dozens of other various reasons exist. People are just not behaving as rational as what the textbook describes when they are trading and investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc87e138f5ad7836364c72b04e864f2", "text": "News about a company is not the only thing that affects its stock's price. There is also supply and demand. That, of course, is influenced by news, but it is not the only actor. An insider, with a large position in their company's stock, may want to diversify his overall portfolio and thus need to sell a large amount of stock. That may be significant enough to increase supply and likely reduce the stock's price somewhat. That brings me to another influence on stock price: perception. Executives, and other insiders with large positions in their company's stock, have to be careful about how and when they sell some of that stock as to not worry the markets. Many investors watch insider selling to gauge the health of the company. Which brings me to another important point. There are many things that may be considered news which is material to a certain company and its stock. It is not just quarterly filings, earnings reports and such. There is also news related to competitors, news about the economy or a certain sector, news about some weather event that affects a major supplier, news about a major earthquake that will impact the economy of a nation which can then have knock-on effects to other economies, etc... There are also a lot of investors with varying needs which will influence supply and demand. An institutional investor, needing to diversify, may reduce their position in a stock and thus increase supply enough that it impacts the stock's price. Meanwhile, individual investors will make their transactions at varying times during the day. In the aggregate, that may have significant impacts on supply and demand. The overall point being that there are a lot of inputs and a lot of actors in a complicated system. Even if you focus just on news, there are many things that fall into that category. News does not come out at regular intervals and it does not necessarily spread evenly. That alone could make for a highly variable environment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0620cbca97d934750faaf78e76922855", "text": "Aside from the market implications Victor and JB King mention, another possible reason is the dividends they pay. Usually, the dividends a company pays are dependent on the profit the company made. if a company makes less profit, the dividends turn out smaller. This might incite unrest among the shareholders, because this means that they get paid less dividends, which makes that share more likely to be sold, and thus for the price to fall.", "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": "fcba21aa3c74e9db304b5f7ec2423be7", "text": "It is unlikely that buying 100 shares will have any effect on a stock's price, unless the stock's average trading volume is incredibly low. That being said, no matter how many share you buy, there's no way to know what the impact on the price will be, because that's only one factor in how shares are priced. If anyone could figure out the answer to your question then they'd be extremely rich, because they'd simply watch for big share trades and then buy those stocks on the way up. The market makers who actually execute the trades are the ones who set the prices, and most stocks have multiple market makers trading the stock, so the bid/ask you see is the highest bid and lowest ask. The market makers set the price based on what the trend of the stock is. If, for instance, there's a large number of sell orders against a stock, the market makers will start dropping the bid prices as they fill execution orders, and as they see buy orders increase, they'll raise ask prices as they fill execution orders. The market makers earn the difference between what they paid to buy someone's stock who was selling and what they get from someone else who buys it. This is a simplified explanation, so pro traders, don't beat me up! (grin) So, basically, it takes quite a bit of share volume in one direction or another to affect a stock's price. I can guarantee a 100-share trade wouldn't even be noticed by market makers. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed0f4a15ea7b5f4c0e208feb408df841", "text": "\"I have some experience with this. I have had fraudulent charges appear on my credit card statement and had to change my card number several times, despite (I believe) no carelessness on my part. Every time that this has happened, I have never lost a penny due to fraud on my credit card. The bank has ultimately removed the fraudulent charges in every instance. Given this, you'd think the consumer doesn't need to worry about this at all. But it seems like credit card companies beg to differ. Yes, because although I have never lost a penny to fraud, the bank (or the merchant) loses money every time it happens. The $0 liability protects you; the card security measures protect the bank. But... why should a consumer ever bother worrying about these in the first place, when he knows he legally can't be held responsible for fraudulent charges? What exactly is this new \"\"peace of mind\"\" that he supposedly gets by (say) using features like virtual account numbers that he doesn't already have? Although you shouldn't end up out any money when this happens, it is an inconvenience. The bank will cancel your card and issue you a new number. It may take a few days for you to receive your new card. If you have another card to use, this isn't a big deal. If you are out of state the day before you need to check out of a hotel and return a rental car with no backup credit card (as I have been), it is a big deal. (In my case, I had to have the credit card company talk to the hotel to give them the new card number, and they were able to overnight me a new credit card so I could get home. I now make sure I carry a backup credit card.) Should a consumer put any effort into worrying about this at all? (Why?) In my opinion, it makes sense to be careful what you do with your credit card number, if only to avoid the inconvenience. Don't type your credit card number into an e-mail message, for example, and only use it on websites that you trust. That having been said, it is not worth it to be paranoid about it, either. No matter how careful you are, eventually you will probably use it at a store that gets hacked, or your card will get skimmed somewhere, and you'll need to get a new credit card number. The best way to protect yourself is to make sure that you go over your credit card statement each month and look for any fraudulent charges that the bank didn't catch.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b1ebfc2c86a395f575eb6475a8596391", "text": "\"StasM, It's taken a while but many banks offer tokens - although they tend to limit the accounts for which they will be issued. All of the following issue tokens, but there are many more: CitiBank JP Morgan Union Bank Wells Fargo Callaway Bank Wachovia Bank of North Dakota The River Bank of Wisconsin Metcalf Bank, Kansas Stonebridge Bank In 2005 federal regulators stipulated that banks needed to get better with security for online banking customers, but they did not endorse a particular technology. Tokens (aka fobs) were endorsed. The news was negatively received by the banks because putting more steps in the way of a customer drives the customer away. See this 2005 report for more info: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/2005-11-02-cybercrime-prevention_x.htm My guess is a tipping point was reached since then, where customers became savvy of the risks, and that the \"\"extra steps\"\" became less an issue than the \"\"extra security\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2f94e4f4a3b3116dbe2dd98d409f72", "text": "There are very few banks which offer two-factor authentication. Part of the reason is cost. Providing a token to every account-holder is expensive, not just in the device or system, but in providing support and assistance to the millions of people who won't have the faintest idea how it works and complain that they no longer have access to their accounts. That said, it is sometimes available on request for personal accounts and many banks require it for their business clients. My HSBC Business account comes with two-factor as default and it works extremely well. There is also the pseudo-two-factor security offered by Visa and MasterCard (3-D secure) which performs a similar function.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c3c5e2804a3f4ff19c1a1293a007deb", "text": "E*Trade offers banking services, and will provide you with a security token free if you have sufficient assets there ($50,000). Otherwise they'll charge you a $25 fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ec95e7608405e25bee1e62d62ef0dc", "text": "Bank of America supports two-factor authentication using SMS messages, similar to PayPal. You can enable the feature from Online Banking under Customer Service -> SafePass Settings. Update: Over the weekend of July 28th, 2012, the SafePass control on the authentication page was updated to simple HTML + JavaScript instead of Flash, so that it is now possible to login from Safari on iOS, among others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42c72db8ab6854be3d6437c02d71e83a", "text": "Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a41c9f182f2aa4a77e16a1f6c6a69eb4", "text": "USAA does - that's my bank. Wells Fargo tries to determine whether the online activity is a risk; if it is, they'll require an SMS code or phoned code be entered. You can get a fairly definitive list of online companies at twofactorauth.org.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fcea2b8b571f1859139d2c628ccf500a", "text": "I have USAA and the home loan process was a nightmare. My account was also compromised but I caught it immediately because they sent me an alert of a large sum of money being transferred to my checking account, so there is that. I just found out that Navy Federal finally accepts Army veterans (it hadn't up until a couple of years ago) so I have an account with them just so I can get different loan options and credit card rates. Navy Federal has minimums for getting ATM refunds while USAA doesn't, so for now I just have a savings account with them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31fc9c275253a8a25056530c6bdd76d5", "text": "I read an article where this website did an interview with them and concluded its very sketchy and possibly illegal. They refused to give out their FDIC number and they got the high interest rate by selling personal customer information to third parties", "title": "" }, { "docid": "807a92ad542d215ad05806d41571e244", "text": "When I went on vacation to London a few years ago, I looked around at banks with ATM deals with UK banks. I found that B of A had a deal with a UK bank that you could use their ATMs to take out money from your US account for practically no fees. So the week or so before I left, I opened an account at B of A, put a bunch of money in it, and used the B of A debit card during my trip as much as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd5a1b84940c079a7c2f75cafa6f8904", "text": "Buxfer is a personal-finance web app which you might like. It's not open-source. But at least none of your complaints about financeworks.intuit.com apply to Buxfer. Buxfer offers a piece of software you can download to your own PC, called Firebux. This macro-recording software provides automation that helps you download statements and upload them to Buxfer. So you never have to give Buxfer any of your bank or brokerage usernames or passwords. Buxfer and Firebux are both free of charge. Wesabe, another personal-finance web app, also used to offer data-uploader software, but Wesabe has now gone out of business.", "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": "2bcc07d2a1ecf891d4e6b74729d40f57", "text": "In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well. They have excellent customer service.", "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": "af1e66be7a0e8c8af69736054273ebf8", "text": "I'm working on some banking-related research, and have run into a problem: financial data switches between using RSSDIDs and FDIC certs to identify individual banks. I'm looking for an efficient way to convert between ID types or include both, as I am merging large financial data sets that each use different ID types. I have found [this](https://www.ffiec.gov/nicpubweb/nicweb/searchform.aspx), which allows for conversion one-by-one. However, I'm working with a very large set of bank data, and would really appreciate a more efficient way to do this. Does anyone know of a data set that matches certs to RSSDIDs? edit: just in case someone else needs it, the call report bulk downloads on the ffiec site have both the CERTs and RSSDIDs, so you can use those.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc7abd96a4232b1049975ebf8aa602f", "text": "Capital One 360. No minimums balance, no fees. Everything's online. Make deposits using an app or an image of the check. ATMs are free almost everywhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38a1e558bd7d0f7595a41143e9be2a8f", "text": "Personal finance startup BillGuard has raised $10 million in second-round financing, and it’s using it to expand its service that helps protect accounts from fraudulent activity, the company said Tuesday. BillGuard protects users by registering their credit and debit cards and keeping an eye out for questionable and fraudulent charges. The company uses a crowdsourced approach to identifying unauthorized charges, by not only providing its own detection but also incorporating users’ billing complaints to track and analyze payments. BillGuard’s big second round of funding comes from a powerhouse group, including Khosla Ventures, Eric Schmidt’s Innovation Endeavors and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund. “At Khosla Ventures we love entrepreneurs who dare to tackle large problems with disruptive, bottom-up methods,” said Vinod Khosla, founding partner of Khosla Ventures, in a statement. At present, BillGuard is free to use for anyone who wants to sign up. So how is it going to make money? The company is talking to large banks that could act as partners and incorporate BillGuard on a per-customer basis for a small fee. BillGuard is also exploring the idea of a merchant certification program that would let merchants have access to some its data, and follow up with customers who end up with fraudulent or questionable charges. New York-based BillGuard previously raised $3 million in its first round of funding from Bessemer Venture Partners and IA Ventures. BillGuard made its public debut on stage at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in May 2011.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbb67d40032f4f89b5d23f90cb3caa17", "text": "I've had good experiences with a regional bank. All the perks of Wells but without the bullshit fees (except ATMs unfortunately but I just get cash back in the rare instance that a card / my phone won't cut it).", "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": "51fc55d0608b3e0ebf101e5489f185cb", "text": "\"Much of what you're asking will not be disclosed for obvious security reasons, so don't be surprised when call center people say they \"\"don't know\"\". They may actually not know, but even if they did, they'd be fired if they were to say anything. Nothing could be a touchier subject than online security for the financial institutions. I don't know of reliable sources for the data you're asking about, and I don't know the banks or other firms would release it. For a bank to talk about its incidence rates of fraud would be unusual, because none of these institutions wants to appear \"\"less safe\"\" than their competitors. If there's any information out there then it's going to be pretty vague. None of these institutions wants the \"\"bad guys\"\" to know what their degree of success is against one bank versus any other. I hope that makes sense. The smaller banks usually piggyback their data on the networks of the larger financial institutions, so they are as secure (as a general rule) as the larger banks' networks they're running on. Also, your transactions on your credit cards are not generally handled directly by your bank anyway, unless it's one of the big heavyweights like Chase or Bank of America. All transactions run through merchant processors, who act as intermediaries between merchants and the banks, and those guys are pretty damned good at security. I've met some of the programmers, and they're impressive to me (I've been a programmer for 35 years and can't put a finger on these guys!). Most banks require that you must provide proof of identity when opening an account, and that ID must me the standards of the \"\"USA Real ID Act\"\". Here's an excerpt from the Department of Homeland Security website on what Real ID is: Passed by Congress in 2005, the REAL ID Act enacted the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation that the Federal Government “set standards for the issuance of sources of identification, such as driver's licenses.” The Act established minimum security standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for official purposes licenses and identification cards from states that do not meet these standards. States have made considerable progress in meeting this key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and every state has a more secure driver’s license today than before the passage of the Act. In order for banks to qualify for FDIC protection, they must comply with the Real ID standards when opening accounts. As with any business (especially online), the most effective way to minimize fraud is vigilant monitoring of data. Banks and other online financial entities have become very adept at pattern analysis and simply knowing where and what to look for when dealing with their customers. There are certainly sophisticated measures which are kept carefully out of the public eye for doing this, and obviously they're good at it. They have to be, right? There's no way to completely eliminate fraud -- too much incentive exists for the \"\"bad guys\"\" to not constantly search for new ways to run their schemes, and the good guys will always be at the disadvantage, because there's no way to anticipate everything anyone might come up with. Just look at online viruses and malware. Your antivirus software can only deal with what it knows about, and the bad guys are always coming up with some new variant that gets past the filters until the antivirus maker learns of it and comes up with a way to deal with it. Your question's a good one to ponder, and I wouldn't want to be the chief of internet security for a bank or online institution, because I'd lay awake at night pondering when the call's going to come that we finally ran out of luck! (grin) I hope this was helpful. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b404a0a65abf25390f0c7079320447eb", "text": "Australia has a massive housing bubble (one of the last in the world to pop), no productivity growth (lots of investment in mining which hasn't yet payed off, though we'll do well if commodities pick up), and relies on China and India buying lots of coal and steel at historically high prices.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a09fd048db24b6c49ff5d6bcaf62ade3", "text": "Transfers are defined to arrive on a specific number of business days, nearly always one business day (if you submit it before the cutoff time). The exact number of days depends on the receiver bank, but when you try to create a transfer, it will tell you when it will arrive, before you send it out.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "384e8f4f9cfd57bcd1d185a8fbc1a6dc", "text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09c6c548e583d6ef140969061e5176f", "text": "As per the SIPC website: Most customers can expect to receive their property in one to three months. When the records of the brokerage firm are accurate, deliveries of some securities and cash to customers may begin shortly after the trustee receives the completed claim forms from customers, or even earlier if the trustee can transfer customer accounts to another broker-dealer. Delays of several months usually arise when the failed brokerage firm’s records are not accurate. It also is not uncommon for delays to take place when the troubled brokerage firm or its principals were involved in fraud. Source link: http://www.sipc.org/Who/SIPCQuestions/SIPCQuestion3.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ffe50c45e8063c3225e35c4091f31b7", "text": "\"As mentioned in other answers, you find out by reading the Rulebook for that commodity and exchange. I'll quote a couple of random passages to show how they vary: For CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange) Random Length Lumber Futures, the delivery is ornate: Seller shall give his Notice of Intent to Deliver to the Clearing House prior to 12:00 noon (on any Business Day after termination of trading in the contract month. 20103.D. Seller's Duties If the buyer's designated destination is east of the western boundaries of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma, and the western boundary of Manitoba, Canada, the seller shall follow the buyer's shipping instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. In addition, the seller shall prepay the actual freight charges and bill the buyer, through the Clearing House, the lowest published freight rate for 73-foot railcars from Prince George, British Columbia to the buyer's destination. If the lowest published freight rate from Prince George, British Columbia to buyer's destination is a rate per one hundred pounds, the seller shall bill the buyer on the weight basis of 1,650 pounds per thousand board feet. The term \"\"lowest published freight rate\"\" refers only to the lowest published \"\"general through rate\"\" and not to rates published in any other rate class. If, however, the buyer’s destination is outside of the aforementioned area, the seller shall follow the same procedures except that the seller shall have the right to change the point of origin and/or originating carrier within 2 Business Days after receipt of buyer’s original shipping instructions. If a change of origin and/or originating carrier is made, the seller shall then follow the buyer's revised instructions within seven (7) Business Days after receipt of such instructions. If the freight rate to the buyer's destination is not published, the freight charge shall be negotiated between the buyer and seller in accordance with industry practice. Any additional freight charges resulting from diversion by the buyer in excess of the actual charges for shipment to the destination specified in the shipping instructions submitted to the Clearing House are the responsibility of the buyer. Any reduction in freight charges that may result from a diversion is not subject to billing adjustment through the Clearing House. Any applicable surcharges noted by the rail carrier shall be considered as part of the freight rate and can be billed to the buyer through the CME Clearing House. If within two (2) Business Days of the receipt of the Notice of Intent the buyer has not designated a destination, or if during that time the buyer and seller fail to agree on a negotiated freight charge, the seller shall treat the destination as Chicago, Illinois. If the buyer does not designate a carrier or routing, the seller shall select same according to normal trade practices. To complete delivery, the seller must deposit with the Clearing House a Delivery Notice, a uniform straight bill of lading (or a copy thereof) and written information specifying grade, a tally of pieces of each length, board feet by sizes and total board feet. The foregoing documents must be received by the Clearing House postmarked within fourteen (14) Business Days of the date of receipt of shipping instructions. In addition, within one (1) Business Day after acceptance by the railroad, the Clearing House must receive information (via a telephone call, facsimile or electronic transmission) from the seller giving the car number, piece count by length, unit size, total board footage and date of acceptance. The date of acceptance by the railroad is the date of the bill of lading, signed and/or stamped by the originating carrier, except when determined otherwise by the Clearing House. For some commodities you can't get physical delivery (for instance, Cheese futures won't deliver piles of cheese to your door, for reasons that may be obvious) 6003.A. Final Settlement There shall be no delivery of cheese in settlement of this contract. All contracts open as of the termination of trading shall be cash settled based upon the USDA monthly weighted average price in the U.S. for cheese. The reported USDA monthly weighted average price for cheese uses both 40 pound cheddar block and 500 pound barrel prices. CME gold futures will deliver to a licensed depository, so you would have to arrange for delivery from the depository (they'll issue you a warrant), assuming you really want a 100 troy oz. bar of gold: CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS The contract for delivery on futures contracts shall be one hundred (100) troy ounces of gold with a weight tolerance of 5% either higher or lower. Gold delivered under this contract shall assay to a minimum of 995 fineness and must be a brand approved by the Exchange. Gold meeting all of the following specifications shall be deliverable in satisfaction of futures contract delivery obligations under this rule: Either one (1) 100 troy ounce bar, or three (3) one (1) kilo bars. Gold must consist of one or more of the Exchange’s Brand marks, as provided in Chapter 7, current at the date of the delivery of contract. Each bar of Eligible gold must have the weight, fineness, bar number, and brand mark clearly incised on the bar. The weight may be in troy ounces or grams. If the weight is in grams, it must be converted to troy ounces for documentation purposes by dividing the weight in grams by 31.1035 and rounding to the nearest one hundredth of a troy ounce. All documentation must illustrate the weight in troy ounces. Each Warrant issued by a Depository shall reference the serial number and name of the Producer of each bar. Each assay certificate issued by an Assayer shall certify that each bar of gold in the lot assays no less than 995 fineness and weight of each bar and the name of the Producer that produced each bar. Gold must be delivered to a Depository by a Carrier as follows: a. directly from a Producer; b. directly from an Assayer, provided that such gold is accompanied by an assay certificate of such Assayer; or c. directly from another Depository; provided, that such gold was placed in such other Depository pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94d2490c97d88ed2dc63b9efb26711fb", "text": "\"You are right, if by \"\"a lot of time\"\" you mean a lot of occasions lasting a few milliseconds each. This is one of the oldest arbitrages in the book, and there's plenty of people constantly on the lookout for such situations, hence they are rare and don't last very long. Most of the time the relationship is satisfied to within the accuracy set by the bid-ask spread. What you write as an equality should actually be a set of inequalities. Continuing with your example, suppose 1 GBP ~ 2 USD, where the market price to buy GBP (the offer) is $2.01 and to sell GBP (the bid) is $1.99. Suppose further that 1 USD ~ 2 EUR, and the market price to buy USD is EUR2.01 and to sell USD is EUR1.99. Then converting your GBP to EUR in this way requires selling for USD (receive $1.99), then sell the USD for EUR (receive EUR3.9601). Going the other way, converting EUR to GBP, it will cost you EUR4.0401 to buy 1 GBP. Hence, so long as the posted prices for direct conversion are within these bounds, there is no arbitrage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac39145c842a2f524bf52e9ad797b4ec", "text": "\"Quite a few Bank in India allow Funds Transfer via ATM. One has to first register the beneficiary account and wait for 24 hrs before transacting. However it looks like \"\"Indian Bank\"\" currently does not offer this service. You can call up Indian Bank and ask if they provide this service. Alternativly use the Internet Banking to transfer funds to CitiBank or any other Bank in India.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4", "text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef1c7c2a0da5d0c4d348db3446d4e5be", "text": "It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b94911436e766d7e927bbe443605fb5", "text": "tl;dr: Be patient, money is probably sitting somewhere, and it will eventually be credited back to your account. I had a similar problem about 10 years ago. I sent an international wire transfer, from my own bank account in Germany to my bank account in Central America. I had done this before, and there had been no issues, but in this case, even though all the information was correct, the bank rejected the wire because it was above $10K, and in that case, the bank needs written proof from the owner of the receiving account (me) , and so didn't know where the funds were coming from. I had to call the local Sparkasse bank in Germany, as well as an intermediary bank in London to sort it all out, and in total, had to wait about 3-4 weeks to get the money back in my Sparkasse bank account. At one point I thought I may never see that money back, especially since there was an intermediary bank to deal with, but it all worked out in the end.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07442b678168e578b73bde5a1fd0fb25", "text": "My bank (USAA) moves money to and from a USAA brokerage account instantly. They also have instant transfers from their money market funds to checking, savings, and brokerage. It takes the 3 days to go to another institution, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3404e5602b568dd1e5af71e50c6d531", "text": "\"[This is the simple solution.](http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3041628) \"\"Since the Securities and Exchange Act requires that all orders must be intended to execute there's a simple way to prevent this sort of nanosecond game, where any part of the strategy involves \"\"flashing\"\" an order that isn't really intended to execute and thus clear through the exchange: Force all orders to be valid for two full seconds or until executed.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c2dfe34ea55af11139b3dade5f2cb38", "text": "I assume the same criteria apply for this as your previous question. You want to physically transfer in excess of 50,000 USD multiple times a week and you want the transportation mechanism to be instant or very quick. I don't believe there is any option that won't raise serious red flags with the government entities you cross the boundaries of. Even a cheque, which a person in the comments of OP's question suggests, wouldn't be sufficient due to government regulation requiring banks to put holds on such large amounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e77a1e994c475bcb9e126a374154e32d", "text": "From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_transfer: The entity wishing to do a transfer approaches a bank and gives the bank the order to transfer a certain amount of money. IBAN and BIC codes are given as well so the bank knows where the money needs to be sent. The sending bank transmits a message, via a secure system (such as SWIFT or Fedwire), to the receiving bank, requesting that it effect payment according to the instructions given. The message also includes settlement instructions. The actual transfer is not instantaneous: funds may take several hours or even days to move from the sender's account to the receiver's account. Either the banks involved must hold a reciprocal account with each other, or the payment must be sent to a bank with such an account, a correspondent bank, for further benefit to the ultimate recipient. Banks collect payment for the service from the sender as well as from the recipient. The sending bank typically collects a fee separate from the funds being transferred, while the receiving bank and intermediate banks through which the transfer travels deduct fees from the money being transferred so that the recipient receives less than what the sender sent. The last point may not be relevant in domestic transfers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d4b34e93db03a9b65fa0b00110e7e9d", "text": "\"This seems almost overkill, but if you want to... I suppose one thing you could do is create a separate money in transit account, similar to Account Payable and Account Receivable. In your bookkeeping, transfer the money from the source account to the holding account on the date that the source bank withdraws it, and then transfer the money to the destination account on the date that the target bank deposits it. This both makes it clear that there is money going between places, and ensures that the daily balance on each \"\"physical\"\" account is accurate. For cash withdrawals and deposits, I'd just use the date when you make the withdrawal, since that is the day from which the money is available in the new location rather than the old one. Note: I don't know if this is the \"\"proper\"\" way to do it in a random jurisdiction, but I doubt being this explicit can get you into trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b28c2b7e080f6e38428d65d2bbb39ce5", "text": "You mentioned BoA. I have had BoA accounts for about ten years. All of my transfers between accounts are immediate. I have never had to wait with BoA. Scottrade Accounts are the worst in this respect. Once I had to wait 8 days. PayPal come in a close second for making you wait.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e8b3c1cca904587c28af58db32522868", "text": "The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22d688f1402e8f49f666d9a6935b39a0", "text": "The volatility measures how fast the stock moves, not how much. So you need to know the period during which that change occurred. Then the volatility naturally is higher the faster is the change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589e8e9ab52c413eb5b16076903fd7a3", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47e1b1d01bb31194a38b0bdea0b8fbe0", "text": "\"The charts on nasdaq.com are log based, if you look closely you can see that the spacing between evenly incremented prices is tighter at the top of the chart and wider at the bottom. It's easiest to see on a stock with a wide price range using candlestick where you can clearly see the grid. I'm also not seeing the \"\"absurdism\"\" you indicate when I look at google finance with the settings ticked to use log on the price axis. I see what I'd expect which is basically a given vertical differential on the price axis representing the same percentage change in price no matter where it is located. For example if I look at GOOG from the earliest date they have (Aug 20 2004) to a nice high point (dec 7 2007) I see a cart where the gap from the the bottom of the chart (seems to be right around 100) to the 200 point, (a 100% increase) is the same as from 200 to 400 (a 100% increase) is the same as 400 to 800 (a 100# increase) That's exactly what I expect from a 'log' chart on a financial site, each relative move up or down of the same distance, represents the same relative change in value. So I'm having difficulty understanding what your complaint is. (note: I'm using chrome, which is the browser I'd expect to work best with any google website. results with other browsers could of course vary) If you want to do some other wacky math with the axis then I humbly suggest that something like Excel is your friend. Goto the charts at nasdaq.com get the chart displaying the period you care about, click the chart to display the unlying data, there will be an option to download the data. cram it into excel and go wild as you want with charting it out. e.g. note that step 2 links to client side javascript, so you will need javascript enabled, if you are running something like noscript, disable it for this site. Also since the data opens in a new window, you may also need to enabled 'popups' for the site. (and yes, I sometimes get an annoying news alert advert popup and have to close it when the chart first appears.. oh well it pays the rent and nasdaq is not charging you so for access so such is the price for a free site. )\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe", "text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e19a42d0c1030422b12eaa08ea15d4", "text": "The shortest-hand yet most reliable metric is daily volume / total shares outstanding. A security with a high turnover rate will be more efficient than a lower one, ceteris paribus. The practical impacts are tighter spread and lower average percentage change between trades. A security with a spread of 0% and an average change of 0% between trades is perfectly efficient.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e68f8e0e96e2216f94cc5d9bcecc01a", "text": "\"Here's the slippage I was talking about - - - this is when I was trading DXO or around that time. the ultra shares----interesting read at least. \"\"Based on data from October 22, 2008 to January 26, 2009, the S&P 500 had a daily standard deviation of 3.62%. If you were to invest in SDS, an UltraShort ETF which has the S&P 500 as its underlying index, and were to hold it for a year, you should expect to lose between 34% and 74% of your money, if the S&P 500 is flat for that period. This assumes that there are no transaction costs, and that the expense ratio is 0% (in fact, it's 0.91%.) My experiment also assumed that daily stock market returns follow a normal distribution. In fact, the the distribution of daily stock market returns is leptokurtotic (it has fat tails.) According to my mathematical intuition (the Ph.D. is in math, in case you were curious,) if I had performed the experiment with a leptokurtotic distribution, the losses would have been larger. Obviously, this could be checked, but the results are bad enough as it is.\"\" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/ultrapromises_fall_short.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a1af1f518ca2fda333f2639837459d9", "text": "PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc8fc7455dd37b3f2c63dd9bc2c955fc", "text": "\"How accurate is Implied Volatility in predicting future moves? How would you measure this? If the implied volatility says that there's a 1% chance that a stock will double, and it doubles, was it \"\"right\"\"? You could also say that it says there's a 99% change that it doesn't double, so was it \"\"wrong\"\"? What you could measure is the variance of daily returns over a time period, and see how well that compares to implied volatility, but there's no way to compare IV with the absolute price movement. If a stock goes up 0.01 each day, then the variance is 0 (the daily returns are the same each day), but over 250 the stock would go up $2.50.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62", "text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef18299621646b2cd361cf1313bf5a04", "text": "> A short position also loses money if the stock just appreciates more slowly than the broader market, which is one way an overvaluation can correct itself. Is there a derivative based on the literal second derivative (acceleration) of the stock price? If so, you'd be able to short those, yes?", "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": "c600f9ea131c2cbd2362197798ffc51f", "text": "This is a really easy problem. If you're genuinely having trouble, maybe don't be a finance major? All you need to do is know the formulas for the ratios and plug in the variables. Simple and clean. However, if you're lazy and trying to get free answers off of reddit, then you could have saved the time you took to post this question and actually do the problem. You probably would have gotten the answer all by yourself without much help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e080f52dc5ab00a2c1dee3097206fc9", "text": "Don´t forget that changing volatility will have an impact on the time value too! So at times it can happen that your time value is increasing instead of decreasing, if the underlying (market) volatility moves up strongly. Look for articles on option greeks, and how they are interdependent. Some are well explaining in simple language.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "24b3d060e4c23665a0a4e0e103faada2", "text": "Government's tax citizens and businesses in their currency. Earnings (even earnings in cryptocurrencies) are taxable income.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f03a4b47ff3adde312d2859893fa1ae1", "text": "\"Perhaps just an ambiguity rather than a contradiction - You said, \"\"at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government\"\". You then later said \"\"I'm not conflating trust of the issuer with trust of the \"\"bank\"\". I don't trust either.\"\" The problem there is that, on the Bitcoin side of the fence, there's no one there *to* trust. **You** can be the bank. You can also be the issuer, with enough computing horsepower. Do you, then, not trust *yourself*? Or, did I take that entirely wrong and you meant that directed toward the fiat side of things, and don't trust that Trump won't get us into a currency war with China (or his successor finally authorize that trillion dollar platinum coin to circumvent the debt ceiling - I don't mean that to be at all partisan)?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55bd82392b9f03e4190e3d4436bb95c2", "text": "Thank you. Added to my list. This is very very helpful. I knew about the blockchain and the currency. Unfortunately, I'm not a pedant about differentiating between them with capitalising the first letter. I do not, however, understand Ethereum very well at all. So will read up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ee003abb9d3d266789513d9d7673856", "text": "\"Edit: I discovered Bitcoin a few months after I posted this answer. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this question to review it, particularly the myths page that dispels much of the FUD. Original answer: Although it is not online, as a concept the Totnes Pound may be of interest to you. I live quite close to this village (in the UK) and the system it promotes does work well. According to the Transition Town Totnes website this means that it is \"\"a community in a process of imagining and creating a future that addresses the twin challenges of diminishing oil and gas supplies and climate change , and creates the kind of community that we would all want to be part of.\"\" If you are looking for a starting place to introduce a new type of currency, perhaps in response to over-dependence on oil and global trade, then reading about the Transition Towns initiative could provide you with the answers you're looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "341db8f4c2c2686e74b451a59f893298", "text": "Dream on. You are parroting government apologists. The only real complaint against gold is that it forces governments to limit their expenditures to what they can collect in revenue. All the critics of gold are in favor of big government and deficit spending. Gold is money. It is the only real money. And within five years there will be a de facto gold standard in international commerce.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b546e3ca3edf9892dc011ac3e6ca69", "text": "It's quite the contrary. If there are mass failures of banks, then the money supply will collapse and there will be vicious deflation, increasing the value of money held as cash. It's only if governments print money to bail the banks out that there's a (small) risk of hyperinflation and the effective collapse of the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6921b95d58b4a2801f0b86f9e9a3cc27", "text": "\"Lol you finance guys are so hilarious. You don't understand cryptocurrencies or \"\"decentralized ledger technology\"\" at all. The ONLY way it works is if people have some **incentive** to actually secure and verify the Merkle Chain.... If I'm not getting something out of it **Why the fuck would I run a program to do that? Just to watch the computer get hot?** The block reward (aka the amount of bitcoins) I get are the underpinning incentive to do so! Get it? No bitcoins = nobody wants to secure your ledger! Therefore these \"\"permissioned ledgers\"\" are not going to be as secure or as trustworthy. There will likely be some cool shit that comes out of permissioned ledgers and intrablockchain stuff, but you are completely missing the ball if you think the actual bitcoins are dumb...... I know its complicated, it takes a while to **actually** understand, but it's partially engineering and you actually have to understand it all before you get to call it stupidity. The \"\"non-speculative value\"\" or utility of bitcoin as a currency seems to work just fine for online drug markets and has done quite a bit of business. It's got fantastic utility for buying retail shit online without having to give up personal information as well. It's got great utility for remittance. It's got divisibility. It is indeed a bonafide currency.... **TLDR; So how do you think that the recordkeeping gets done? Do you think people will do this for free? What function do you think the \"\"cryptocurrencies\"\" themselves currently serve? How do you think permissioned ledgers will be secure (i.e. tamperproof) if not done by public record? Don't you think that if they simply wanted to prevent tamperproof records they only need to use an airgapped computer and pen and paper?***\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "010f6c1e70e941277e8234cd594d6fbd", "text": "I legitimately can't tell if this post is satirical. Ethereum is a very unique technology because it allows for Turing complete computation on its crypto network. Basically allowing for much higher security for data transmission and processing on the web. The reason that the currency is valuable is that in order to encrypt this information and transmit it, you have to pay the network in ethereum. It's had the support of Accenture and is in use by the Luxembourg stock exchange. I think they might know a bit more than the unnamed author of this article who doesn't think being able to inject code into a block chain is unique.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e31045050a5d96241b49790eec6f013", "text": "Currently many countries (and non-government bodies) hold dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is no longer used in their trade, then they no longer have a reason to hold those dollars. If every other country starts to dump their dollar holdings into the world currency markets, the number of dollars floating around in those market would shoot up. The massive supply increase of dollars (we're assuming these other countries are holding massive amounts of dollars) would lead to a large drop in value of the dollar - lots more dollars chasing the same amount of goods. Every purchase will become much more expensive for anyone still buying with dollars, including the American government trying to buy expensive military equipment - unless the US government also switches to using something else to purchase military supplies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "991df101a274ed8b90d892d33db7a635", "text": "Cryptocurrency is undoubtedly at the peak of Gartner hype cycle, but it very well could revolutionise the way we use currency for our daily needs in the future. Stay with me on this… At present, cryptocurrency appears no more than a speculation that is sugar-coated by individuals who have vested interest in it. However, if we overlook this excitement, the actual use of cryptocurrency is mind-boggling. Suppose you had a mid-life crisis and went on a journey to the middle of the Earth to find where humans supposedly originated from, and you met and connected with a local coffee farmer named Razaq in a very remote part of Ethiopia. He invited you for an evening coffee and you obliged, and six months later you yearned for this same coffee whilst you were having another wave of existential thoughts in your penthouse that overlooked the urban jungle. Suddenly, you remembered that Razaq had a cheap but functional smartphone with a Bitcoin wallet, and afterwards you communicated with him on WhatsApp and decided to enter in a transaction with him. Razaq is delighted with this technology, but mainly because he does not have to travel 100 km to-and-fro the nearest city where his bank is located, and he is also happy that he can send a sack of coffee beans to his friend who lives in a faraway land, and all he needs to do is hand over the coffee sack to delivery truck en route the shipping port. Ultimately, saving Razaq lot of his precious time and resources. Now use this one example and multiply it by hundreds of millions of people around the world who have a very remote access to a ‘bank’, but have an access to a basic smartphone – imagine the possibility of connecting people like Razaq to the ‘internet’ world and having a seamless cross-border trade finance transaction using currency that is not controlled by any government. Like many others, I am keen to see the developments of cryptocurrency in the coming years, but for now I remain sceptical. That said, I am more interest in the countless opportunities that will be unlocked by the very technology that is fundamental to all the cryptocurrencies; the Blockchain. Crytocurrency is one branch of Blockchain technology which has proved useful. There are million other possibilities which I'm sure will benefit many industries in the coming decade, and I, for one, am very excited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cece024ae930e0b3672b0a10b701a58", "text": "The government is this countries largest monopoly and rent seeker, whose interests run divergent to our own, and which must be managed closely by the governed lest it becomes an arbitrary regime beholdent to no other authority but its own. If you've watched congress at all, you know how quickly these people can write away the rights and privileges of their constituents. http://work.chron.com/average-salary-government-employees-7863.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a01f34dd2676063e1e509af2ad1089e8", "text": "Legal tender laws and capital gains tax mean that other commodities are at an unfair legal disadvantage to local fiat currency. In other words, governments are using taxes and regulations to manipulate the market and create artificial demand for the currency their central bank has a monopoly on the creation of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e25013fc40b53ee2602fc7567b1b01be", "text": "Does it matter? IF a hostile State wanted to use this data it will certainly be available to buy. Imagine the chaos that a coordinated attack could cause if this data started to be used specifically to cause disruption. The US government should be reacting AS IF this was a State sponsored attack. Legislation should be *flying* through Congress to mitigate this risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3baab1d43ea0036f564a369fd70ccb1", "text": "They can only do that because Coinbase interfaces with fiat currency. As more transactions and holding become denominated in crypto, it will be more difficult for them to tax (if you are using an unlinkable crypto). If I pay someone with Monero or most coins, then the government won't know who was involved in the transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b45f748a0c31dd76eb6f670978f51320", "text": "Fist money does not have legal tender. And technically there are thousands of people willing to fight for bitcoin, who can be seen as an army so in that logic bitcoin has some intrinsic value. But both don't have intrinsic value. Most sources on the internet I can find agree with that. Wikipedia, investopedia and many others. Not that money needs intrinsic value. If the market value is 1000 times above the intrinsic value then the intrinsic value is not even relevant. But 1000 * 0 = 0 and the intrinsic value of the dollar itself (not coins) will always be 0. Same for the EUR and then YUAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14aeb975937fddce5a74b66509faa80b", "text": "Well, if the bond notes are the only currency around, then the electric company will have to choose from at least one of the money supplies to accept as payment; bonds will be the cash. Whichever firm they choose will just see their money demand go up. Second, It will most likely be implied that those people choosing to go into a certain money supply will want to look for a produced good or service in the economy from that firm before taking on it's notes. If the supply has too much inflation for everyone, than they can all move to another one that ensures their capital value. The idea of these systems is also to facilitate productive decision making, which is one of the things are education system should do more of these days. This will be more possible when Government is more limited to and more focused on the role of researcher and developer.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "180891a9e29d7ad7a96a15eaec0e7bc2", "text": "There are federal regulations that state that: As a result it can be assumed that when a loan is paid off, notification should be given to the borrower. There is not a penalty since schools are pretty good about recovering their money. It could be due to a simple human error or glitch in the system. I would email them again confirming that your Perkins Loan had been paid in full, just so you have documentation of it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "40ae70712ee0d2fee4c95c13d1d2069d", "text": "If the loan is for a car, or mortgage there is specific paperwork that is processed when the loan payments have been completed. For other types of loans ask the lender, what will they give you regarding the payoff of the loan. Keep this paperwork, in hard copy and electronic form forever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa333059fd11e1523cf382938d912982", "text": "\"Let me give you some advice from someone who has experience at both ends - had student loan issues myself and parents ran financial aid department at local university. Quick story of my student loan. I graduated in debt and could not pay at first due to having kids way too early. I deferred. Schools will have rules for deference. There are also federal guidelines - lets not get specific on this though since these change every year it seems. So basically there is an initial deferment period in which any student can request for the repayments to be deferred and it is granted. Then there is an extended deferment. Here someone has to OK it. This is really rather arbitrary and up to the school/lender. My school decided to not extend mine after I filled out a mound of paperwork and showed that even without paying I had basically $200 a month for the family to live off past housing/fixed expenses. Eventually they had to cave, because I had no money so they gave me an extended deferment. After the 5 years I started paying. Since my school had a very complex way to pay, I decided to give them 6 months at a time. You would think they would love that right? (On the check it was clearly stated what months I was paying for to show that I was not prepaying the loan off) Well I was in collections 4 months later. Their billing messed up, set me up for prepayment. They then played dumb and acted like I didn't but I had a picture of the check and their bank's stamp on the back... They couldn't get my loan out of collections - even though they messed up. This is probably some lower level employee trying to cover their mistake. So this office tells creditors to leave me alone but I also CANNOT pay my loan because the credit collection agency has slapped a 5k fee on the 7k loan. So my loan spent 5 years (kid you not) like this. It was interest free since the employee stopped the loan processing. Point being is that if you don't pay the lender will either put your loan into deferment automatically or go after you. MOST (not all) schools will opt for deferment, which I believe is 2 years at most places. Then after that you have the optional deferment. So if you keep not paying they might throw you into that bucket. However if you stop paying and you never communicate with them the chances of you getting the optional deferment are almost none - unless school doesn't know where you live. Basically if you don't respond to their mail/emails you get swept into their credit collection process. So just filling out the deferment stuff when you get it - even if they deny it - could buy you up to 10 years - kid you not. Now once you go into the collection process... anything is game. As long as you don't need a home/car loan you can play this game. What the collection agency does depends on size of loan and the rules. If you are at a \"\"major\"\" university the rules are usually more lax, but if you are at the smaller schools, especially the advertised trade/online schools boom - better watch out. Wages will be garnished very soon. Expect to go to court, might have to hire an attorney because some corrupt lenders start smacking on fees - think of the 5k mine smacked on me. So the moral of the story is you will pay it off. If you act nice, fill out paperwork, talk to school, and so on you can probably push this off quite a few years. But you are still paying and you will pay interest on everything. So factor in that to the equation. I had a 2.3% loan but they are much higher now. Defaulting isn't always a bad thing. If you don't have the money then you don't have it. And using credit cards to help is not the thing to do. But you need to try to work with the school so you don't incur penalties/fees and so that your job doesn't have creditors calling them. My story ended year 4 that my loan was in collection. A higher up was reviewing my case and called me. Told her the story and emailed her a picture of their cashed check. She was completely embarrassed when she was trying to work out a plan for me and I am like - how about I come down tomorrow with the 7k. But even though lender admitted fault this took 20+ calls to agencies to clear up my credit so I could buy a house. So your goal should be:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a2e54e542bab264da2cf0c2dc3f09b7", "text": "There are different options here. Either way, ensure that you have a paper trail of all your payments. When in doubt, speak to a lawyer, there are many who offer free consultations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a4f389f97a24cc60821597a105d24a", "text": "In the EU, you might be looking for Directive 2000/35/EC (Late Payment Directive). There was a statutory rate, 7% above the European Central Bank main rate. However, this Directive was recently repealed by Directive 2011/7/EU, which sets the statutory rate at ECB + 8%. (Under EU regulations, Directives must be turned into laws by national governments, which often takes several months. So in some EU countries the local laws may still reflect the old Directive. Also, the UK doesn't participate in the Euro, and doesn't follow the ECB rate)", "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": "60b52ce239d29324e0aacd35c82de6e3", "text": "It depends on the type of loan. Fully amortized loans have a schedule of payments don't recalculate as you pay. If you want to make an additional payment you need to contact the lender to apply your payment toward principle and reamortize the loan. Otherwise all your additional payment will do is change the amount due on your next payment, or push out your next payment due date. Regarding interest calculation, you owe interest on the principle outstanding. Say you have a 10 year loan (120 Months), at 5% APR, and a $1,000 payment (this means you borrowed roughly $94,000) Each month the amount of interest owed reduces because there is less principle outstanding. The reason loans are amortized like this is so the borrower has a predictable, known, monthly amount due.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "743fe6aa7cf121a0fcb74e4e50c1c1b2", "text": "Writing a promissory note will be sufficient. Presumably the money will be transferred on or near the date that the loan is signed, and the repayments will follow the pattern prescribed in the note. The IRS is only skeptical of family loans if there is no documentation to support the claim.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02e05f5235a7d8057f0aed641c5c7262", "text": "You may need to specifically state that your extra payments should go towards principal, and should not be considered early payments of future months.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f619a6f40638cb8a9ed76badeb58cb7", "text": "\"Paperwork prevails. What you have is a dealer who get a kickback for sending financing to that institution. And the dealer pretty much said \"\"We only get paid our kickback at two levels of loan life, 6 and 12 months.\"\" You just didn't quite read between the lines. This is very similar to the Variable Annuity salespeople who tell their clients, \"\"The best feature about this product is that the huge commissions I get from the sale fund my kid's college tuition and my own retirement. You, on the other hand, don't really do so well.\"\" Car salesmen and VA sellers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ad8afd66a346863ad67ec813bbba710", "text": "The mortgage I got last year through Wells Fargo explicitly indicates in its terms that excess payment will be considered against future payments (i.e., pay $500 extra in January and you owe $500 less in February) unless indicated otherwise. It goes on to state that with electronic payments you do not get to specify where excess payment goes, so excess payment made electronically always goes toward future payments. If you want to make excess payments toward principal, you must actually send them a check and your payment stub, with the appropriate box ticked. This won't be very different for other major banks, I wouldn't imagine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3fd5c9c209bfbf5883680b43d728caf", "text": "You will be best to cancel the original instruction first, as you will have to wait for any pending payments to be received, as the banks will not entertain multiple refunds. After this can be confirmed the account will simply show a credit which you ask for. Many lenders/banks process these type of transactions after a period of time ie 30 days and there will be no way to speed this up, so the sooner you act the better. When you contact the bank have bank details for the payment(they might transfer externally fingers crossed), or you may receive a cheque in the post. Try to avoid complicating the matter with changes of address and ringing before you have cancelled the instruction etc if possible.", "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": "0cdbf1f4a40dcc629730439f9a65c531", "text": "Disclaimer: I am not a banker nor a lawyer. I am unaware of the exact term in English, there is a process where you can ask for a reversal of a payment if it was made in error and your former employer should have made use of this. After a month though, I'm fairly sure the period of eligibility for this reversal has passed. As far as I am aware there is no point in time where it becomes ok for you to take this money. If you wish to close the account I would advise contacting the company and obtaining their payment details so you can transfer them the money and subsequently close the account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97346439b9bda6cb87eaf6f87a228137", "text": "Keep in mind that lenders will consider the terms of any loans you have when determining your ability to pay back the mortgage. They'll want to see paperwork, or if you claim it is a gift they will require a letter to that effect from your relative. Obviously, this could effect your ability to qualify for a loan.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "53552812408e5317cdfaa66b3d22b403", "text": "Credit cards have two revenue streams: So yes, the are making money from your daily use of the card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c20932e982311b1eb7c0ae28931d70f1", "text": "They don't make any money off of you personally. They make money off of the merchants per transaction when you use the card. You trigger this fee to the credit card issuer, but it doesn't come out of your pocket. (Or it shouldn't; merchants aren't allowed to pass this fee on to you.) They keep you around because you may at some point become less responsible than you already are, and it would be quite costly to get you back (a couple hundred dollars is the cost of acquiring a new credit card customer). People who are less responsible than you subsidize your free float and your rewards (if any) but the new CARD act makes it more difficult for people to use their cards irresponsibly, so these perks that you enjoy will get less perky with time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f03fc2da0b47a0bb430485b28eb283f", "text": "Of course they make money. They double dip in a lot of instances they make 2 - 3% plus $0.30 per transaction from the merchant and then whatever interest you pay on your card. So let's just say in one day you make stops at Starbucks for a $4 Latte, then at Wendy's for lunch for about $8, then you put about $20 worth of gas in your tank, then you stop at Kroger for some $40 groceries and may you pick up some dinner for about $15. That's 5 transactions at $0.30 which is a $1.50 then at 3% starbucks is $0.12, Wendy's $0.24, gas is $0.60 then kroger $1.20 then dinner $0.45 so the total that they get is $4.11 multiply this by about a million people per day that is about $4.1 million per day that they get. That is a nice penny! just from the merchant so you are making them a lot of money by just using it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bf19fd604b1be18afc9a8357116ed92", "text": "Maybe they don't make much, but they make some for sure. In addition to what duffbeer703 says, they also have a warm body at the end of the line and will sell your contact info (or at least access to your eyeballs) to marketers. They stuff advertisements into your bill for example. If nothing else, you are brand value for them as they can convince merchants (who get charged monthly) that X billion people carry their card and that merchant would be missing out on sales by not accepting their product. If you have a rewards card that pays you for using it, the merchant has higher corresponding fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b0d95869358bf04e59f28abbe0058a2", "text": "\"Ever wonder why certain businesses won't accept certain credit cards? (The sign above the register saying \"\"Sorry, we don't accept AmericanExpress\"\"). It's because they don't want to pay that credit card company's transaction fees. One of the roles of the credit card company is to facilitate the transaction process between the customer (you) and the store. And now that using credit cards over cash or check is so ingrained in our culture, it creates extra work for the customer to make purchases at an establishment that is cash-only. Credit card companies know this, and so do businesses. So businesses will partner with credit card companies so that customers can use their cards. This way, everything is handled electronically (this can also benefit the business, since there's added security as they're not dealing with cash directly, and they don't have to manually count as much cash later). However a business may only budget a certain amount of their profits they want taken by credit card transactions. So if a company's fees are too high (say AmericanExpress, for example) and they are banking on you already having a Visa card, the company isn't going to go out of its way to provide the AmericanExpress option for you. If it were free for the business to use a credit card company's service at their stores, then they would all just provide the option for every card! So the credit card company making money is all contingent on you spending your money by using their credit card. You use the card, and the store pays the company for the transaction.\"", "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": "e16dfc5ebe4ff44d109ba85703e0815c", "text": "If you've agreed to pay the money, then you owe them whether they have a valid credit card number of yours or not. If they want to report your debt to a collections agency and/or credit bureau, they can. Which would suck for you. It may not be that likely over $9.99 or whatever, but my point is that it's still a small risk even with a temporary card number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcf3e85b478a43834c0d63f867c7c6a3", "text": "\"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most \"\"0%\"\" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b000a97892cc975d572e05f9af9505f", "text": "This is very much possible and happens quite a lot. In the US, for example, promotional offers by credit card companies where you pay no interest on the balance for a certain period are a very common thing. The lender gains a new customer on such a loan, and usually earns money from the spending via the merchant fees (specifically for credit cards, at least). The pro is obviously free money. The con is that this is usually for a short period of time (longest I've seen was 15 months) after which if you're not careful, high interest rates will be charged. In some cases, interest will be charged retroactively for the whole period if you don't pay off the balance or miss the minimum payment due.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c682ef5283bb51dbcdf86854fba99e8", "text": "Yes, but note that some credit card companies let you create virtual cards--you can define how much money is on them and how long they last. If you're worried about a site you can use such a card to make the payment, then get rid of the virtual number so nobody can do dirty deeds with it. In practice, however, companies that do this are going to get stomped on hard by the credit card companies--other than outright scams it basically does not happen. (Hacking is another matter--just pick up the newspaper. It's not exactly unusual to read of hackers getting access to credit card information that they weren't supposed to have access to in the first place.) So long as you deal with a company that's been around for a while the risk is trivial.", "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": "e98a39641e112d9ac6b9f797f28319c9", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5de33e9ed8137e3add616b13b786624b", "text": "\"From the card issuer's point of view, the purpose of balance transfers is very simple. A credit card company wants you to owe them more money, so they will make more profit getting more interest payments from you. To do that, they will offer an (apparently) good deal to transfer the debt that you owe to other companies onto their card. The deal may superficially look good to you, because it offers a low interest rate for a limited time period, etc. But never forget that its real purpose is to be a good deal for the card company, not for you. Of course, credit card companies target these deals at their \"\"typical\"\" customers. They have to tolerate a few \"\"smart\"\" customers who actually make them no money at all, by always paying off their card balance before any interest is due, never using their card to draw cash from an ATM (which has no interest-free loan period), never using their card for overseas transactions that incur fees and/or poor currency exchange rates, etc. Your financial objective should be to make yourself one of the customers the card company doesn't want - but \"\"only paying off the minimum balance every month\"\" is exactly the wrong way to do that!\"", "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": "2180f91615b9d9c4599b3ab34e79b69e", "text": "1) Every credit card company charges vendors a fee. That's sufficient to make an acceptable profit per charge even if some of that money goes into marketing expenses -- and the cash-back offer is a marketing expense. 2) Many if not most consumers pay interest; probably everyone does so occasionally when we get distracted and miss a payment. 3) The offer encourages you to put more payments on the card -- and in particular on their card -- than you might otherwise. See #1; that increases net income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eea446cbb3ebab34ec08cdc4dd791dde", "text": "That would have been a good idea. They don't charge interest on a $0 balance, but if you payoff your account after the cycle date, there is a hidden balance and that balance will accrue interest. It is only a few cents a day. I just don't think it is legal for them to refuse to provide you a payoff quote mid cycle. I'm almost certain. When I worked for Discover it was a key point in training to not give the wrong amount and to make sure to use the calculator in the system to quote a daily balance, how much it goes up per day, and how much they should send if they were mailing the payment, giving consideration for the time it takes to receive/process the payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4e97de34cef36c0dad6a1c09fff5040", "text": "\"It is called \"\"Credit card installments\"\" or \"\"Equal pay installments\"\", and I am not aware of them being widely used in the USA. While in other countries they are supported by banks directly (right?), in US you may find this option only in some big stores like home improvement stores, car dealerships, cell phone operators (so that you can buy a new phone) etc. Some stores allow 0% financing for, say, 12 months which is not exactly the same as installments but close, if you have discipline to pay $250 each month and not wait for 12 months to end. Splitting the big payment in parts means that the seller gets money in parts as well, and it adds risks of customer default, introduces debt collection possibility etc. That's why it's usually up to the merchants to support it - bank does not care in this case, from the bank point of view the store just charges the same card another $250 every month. In other countries banks support this option directly, I think, taking over or dividing the risk with the merchants. This has not happened in US. There is a company SplitIt which automates installments if stores want to support it but again, it means stores need to agree to it. Here is a simple article describing how credit cards work: https://www.usbank.com/credit-cards/how-credit-cards-work.html In general, if you move to US, you are unlikely to be able to get a regular credit card because you will not have any \"\"credit history\"\" which is a system designed to track each customer ability to get & pay off debt. The easiest way to build the history - request \"\"secured credit card\"\", which means you have to give the bank money up front and then they will give you a credit card with a credit limit equal to that amount. It's like a \"\"practice credit card\"\". You use it for 6-12 months and the bank will report your usage to credit bureaus, establishing your \"\"credit score\"\". After that you should be able to get your money back and convert your secured card into a regular credit card. Credit history can be also built by paying rent and utilities but that requires companies who collect money to report the payments to credit bureaus and very few do that. As anything else in US, there are some businesses which help to solve this problem for extra money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8109b05f5d08b665d3a2bff4d6e99bb", "text": "Credit card companies charge merchants for accepting their cards. They'll take their cut and give you some of the fee back as a reward. So, in reality merchants have increased their prices to accommodate for the credit card processing fees. The credit card takes a bit of their fee and gives you back some of the money you wouldn't have spent if there were no fees for using a credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a27715be676e47c2c991c5717c23bdfa", "text": "\"I'm not sure if this answer is going to win me many friends on reddit, but here goes... There's no good reason why they couldn't have just told him the current balance shown on their records, BUT... **There are some good reasons why they can't quote a definitive \"\"payoff\"\" balance to instantly settle the account:** It's very possible to charge something today, and not have it show up on Chase's records until tomorrow, or Monday, or later. There are still places that process paper credit-card transactions, or that deal with 3rd-party payment processors who reconcile transactions M-F, 9-5ish, and so on. - Most transactions these days are authorized the instant you swipe the card, and the merchant won't process until they get authorization back from the CC company. But sometimes those authorizations come from third-party processors who don't bill Chase until later. Some of them might not process a Friday afternoon transaction until close-of-business Monday. - Also, there are things like taxicab fares that might be collected when you exit the cab, but the record exists only in the taxi's onboard machine until they plug it into something else at the end of the shift. - There are still some situations (outdoor flea-markets, auctions, etc) where the merchant takes a paper imprint, and doesn't actually process the payment until they physically mail it in or whatever. - Some small businesses have information-security routines in place where only one person is allowed to process credit-card payments, but where multiple customer service reps are allowed to accept the CC info, write it down on one piece of paper, then either physically hand the paper to the person with processing rights, or deposit the paper in a locked office or mail-slot for later processing. This is obviously not an instant-update system for Chase. (Believe it or not, this system is actually considered to be *more* secure than retaining computerized records unless the business has very rigorous end-to-end info security). So... there are a bunch of legit reasons why a CC company can't necessarily tell you this instant that you only need to pay $x and no more to close the account (although there is no good reason why they shouldn't be able to quote your current balance). What happens when you \"\"close an account\"\" is basically that they stop accepting new charges that were *made* after your notification, but they will still accept and bill you for legit charges that you incurred before you gave them notice. So basically, they \"\"turn off\"\" the credit-card, but they can't guarantee how much you owe until the next billing cycle after this one closes: - You notify them to \"\"close\"\" the account. They stop authorizing new charges. - Their merchant agreements basically give the merchant a certain window to process charges. The CC company process legit charges that were made prior to \"\"closing\"\" the account. - The CC company sends you the final statement *after* that window for any charges has expired, - When that final statement is paid (or if it is zero), *THAT* is when the account is settled and reported to Equifax etc as \"\"paid\"\". So it's hard to tell from your post who was being overly semantic/unreasonable. If the CC company refused to tell the current balance, they were just being dickheads. But if they refused to promise that the current balance shown is enough to instantly settle the account forever, they had legit reasons. Hope that helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a02953d7276dc71ac04d14269d15ff1c", "text": "Much money is made by creditors on the transaction value of a client in addition to interest value. Knowing that, I pay off all my cards every month, have never made a late payment, and get a number of offers every year for reward type cards. Don't ever be worried about paying off your card in full, just be sure you're using your card and that you pay on time, every time.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3d1a7d0081a852ae4d9ecee9dc1239f4", "text": "\"You're asking explicitly about $250K+ wage earners. Well, believe it or not, but this is the most discriminated group of people in the US tax code. This is what is called \"\"the upper middle class\"\". People who still have to work for a living, but treated as if they're rich (I don't consider people who must work to keep up their life style as rich). Many of the deductions cannot be taken by them. Lets go over the list Keith made: You mentioned losses - you cannot deduct gambling losses (in excess of gambling income), and you cannot deduct passive (rental real estate, for example) losses. While for rental real estate there's a small amount of losses you could deduct, it phases out well below the $250K line (can be deducted against passive income, or when disposed of the property). 529 plans are not deductible (in fact, its a gift subject to the gift tax). Bottom line, being a high earner with wages only means you pay the most tax. You either find a way to become self employed and have a lot of business deductions on your schedule C/1120S, or switch to capital gains. You can marry an unemployed partner, it will make your life slightly easier.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "794ea32bcc14adc5586eceeeb639c9ee", "text": "The $250K and up are not one homogeneous group. The lower end of this group benefits from normal Schedule A itemized deductions, e.g. mortgage interest, property tax, state income tax, and charitable donations. As you mention, 401(k) ($17k employee contribution limit this year), but also things like the dependent care account ($5k limit) and flexible spending account, limited usually up to $2500 in '14. The 529 deposits are limited to the gifting limit, $14K in 2014, but one can gift up to five years' deposits up front. This isn't a tax deduction, but does pull money out of one's estate and lets it grow tax free similar to a Roth IRA. The savings from such accounts is probably in the $15k - $20K range given the 20 or so year lifetime of the account and limited deposits. At the higher end, the folks making the news are those whose income is all considered capital gains. This applies both to hedge fund managers as well as CEOs whose compensation included large blocks of stock. This isn't a tax deduction, but it's how our system works, the taxation of capital gains vs. ordinary income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b2f97bee5af06b424e41ea98c2014ae", "text": "One of the main tax loopholes more readily available to the wealthy in the U.S. is the fact that long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. Certainly, people making less than $250,000/year can take advantage of this as well, but the fact is that people making, say, $60,000/year likely have a much smaller proportion of their income available to invest in, say, indexed mutual funds or ETFs. You may wish to read Wikipedia's article on capital gains tax in the United States. You can certainly make the argument that the preferential tax rate on capital gains is appropriate, and the Wikipedia article points out a number of these. Nevertheless, this is one of the main mechanisms whereby people with higher wealth in the U.S. typically leverage the tax code to their advantage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b8b3758cd1582dcdfa95058d7eac28b", "text": "\"From Rich Dad, Poor Dad. 3 Major Things: With rental real estate, in addition to mortgage interest, you also deduct property taxes, and must claim depreciation (cost of house / 27.5 years) Business Expenses. For example, buy a yacht and put it in a charter fleet. Deduct interest on the loan, depreciation of the asset, property taxes, upkeep of the boat. Your \"\"business\"\" earns profit from chartering the boat, which if I recall correctly is taxed at a lower rate. You get to go sailing for free. Then there was the concept of subdividing the businesses. If you own a restaurant, create another business to own the property, and the equipment used in the company. Then lease the equipment and rent the land to the restaurant. Now admittedly I thought this was like the Daylight Savings plan of tax avoidance, I mean now aren't you essentially having two companies paying half the taxes. I am sure there are well paid CPAs that make the math happen, perhaps using insurance plans.. Perhaps each business funds a \"\"whole life\"\" insurance account, and contributes vast amounts into that. Then you take a loan from your insurance account. Loans of course are not income, so not taxed. The third way is to create your own bank. Banks are required to have reserves of 9%. Meaning if I have $100 dollars, the FDIA allows me to loan $1,111. I then charge you 20% interest, or $222/yr. Now how much can I loan? ...well you can see how profitable that is. Sure you pay taxes, but when you print your own money who cares? Most of this is just gleamed from books, and government publications, but that was my general understanding of it. Feel free to correct the finer points.\"", "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": "ff3e1c7ccbf8ca72b2a7017d7258f5f7", "text": "It's the percent of your gross income put into savings. You make 60000/year, and save 6000, that's 10%. You can certainly say that you paid 10000 in tax so you really saved 6000/50000, or 12%, if that will make you feel better, but the saving rate is typically based on gross income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baac78ff623eee42bf7091319816b7ac", "text": "\"In your case, I believe the answer is that you don't owe any taxes, if your deductions exceed your income. There is something called the Alternate Minimum Tax to catch \"\"rich\"\" people, who claim \"\"too many\"\" deductions. Basically, it taxes their \"\"gross\"\" income at a lower rate, but allows them no deductions if they make $175,000 or more. You are not in that tax \"\"bracket.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d55b27429ba53a663bc7257aa958fc75", "text": "\"I am going to keep things very simple and explain the common-sense reason why the accountant is right: Also, my sister in law owns a small restaurant, where they claim their accountant informed them of the same thing, where a portion of their business purchases had to be counted as taxable personal income. In this case, they said their actual income for the year (through their paychecks) was around 40-50K, but because of this detail, their taxable income came out to be around 180K, causing them to owe a huge amount of tax (30K ish). Consider them and a similarly situated couple that didn't make these purchases. Your sister in law is better off in that she has the benefit of these purchases (increasing the value of her business and her expected future income), but she's worse off because she got less pay. Presumably, she thought this was a fair trade, otherwise she wouldn't have made those purchases. So why should she pay any less in taxes? There's no reason making fair trades should reduce anyone's tax burden. Now, as the items she purchased lose value, that will be a business loss called \"\"depreciation\"\". That will be deductible. But the purchases themselves are not, and the income that generated the money to make those purchases is taxable. Generally speaking, business gains are taxable, regardless of what you do with the money (whether you pay yourself, invest it, leave it in the business, or whatever). Generally speaking, only business losses or expenses are deductible. A purchase is an even exchange of income for valuable property -- even exchanges are not deductions because the gain of the thing purchased already fairly compensates you for the cost. You don't specify the exact tax status of the business, but there are really only two types of possibilities. It can be separately taxed as a corporation or it can be treated essentially as if it didn't exist. In the former case, corporate income tax would be due on the revenue that was used to pay for the purchases. There would be no personal income tax due. But it's very unlikely this situation applies as it means all profits taken out of the business are taxed twice and so small businesses are rarely organized this way. In the latter case, which is almost certainly the one that applies, business income is treated as self-employment income. In this case, the income that paid for the purchases is taxable, self-employment income. Since a purchase is not a deductible expense, there is no deduction to offset this income. So, again, the key points are: How much she paid herself doesn't matter. Business income is taxable regardless of what you do with it. When a business pays an expense, it has a loss that is deductible against profits. But when a business makes a purchase, it has neither a gain nor a loss. If a restaurant buys a new stove, it trades some money for a stove, presumably a fair trade. It has had no profit and no loss, so this transaction has no immediate effect on the taxes. (There are some exceptions, but presumably the accountant determined that those don't apply.) When the property of a business loses value, that is usually a deductible loss. So over time, a newly-purchased stove will lose value. That is a loss that is deductible. The important thing to understand is that as far as the IRS is concerned, whether you pay yourself the money or not doesn't matter, business income is taxable and only business losses or expenses are deductible. Investments or purchases of capital assets are neither losses nor expenses. There are ways you can opt to have the business taxed separately so only what you pay yourself shows up on your personal taxes. But unless the business is losing money or needs to hold large profits against future expenses, this is generally a worse deal because money you take out of the business is taxed twice -- once as business income and again as personal income. Update: Does the business eventually, over the course of the depreciation schedule, end up getting all of the original $2,000 tax burden back? Possibly. Ultimately, the entire cost of the item is deductible. That won't necessarily translate into getting the taxes back. But that's really not the right way to think about it. The tax burden was on the income earned. Upon immediate replacement, hypothetically with the exact same model, same cost, same 'value', isn't it correct that the \"\"value\"\" of the business only went up by the amount the original item had depreciated? Yes. If you dispose of or sell a capital asset, you will have a gain or loss based on the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and whatever you got for the asset. Wouldn't the tax burden then only be $400? Approximately, yes. The disposal of the original asset would cause a loss of the difference between your remaining basis in the asset and what you got for it (which might be zero). The new asset would then begin depreciating. You are making things a bit more difficult to understand though by focusing on the amount of taxes due rather than the amount of taxable gain or loss you have. They don't always correlate directly (because tax rates can vary).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32f0b35ffba25db5202507ec36bb4f1d", "text": "You can call what you're asking about a 'wealth tax', or 'capital tax'. These are taxes not based on income you earned in a year, but some measure of how much you own. Some countries (Italy I believe is a prime example) tax ownership of foreign land. Some countries tax amounts owned by corporations [Canada did this until ~5-10 years ago depending on province]. Some countries strictly tax your wealth above a certain level (Switzerland, as has been mentioned, does this). One form of what you are referring to that does exist in the US is the 'Estate Tax'. This is a tax on the amount of wealth that a person owns, at the time they die. The threshold for when this tax applies has been very volatile over the last 20 years, but it is generally in the multi-millions, and I believe sits somewhere around $5M. If these taxes start to crop up more and more (and I believe they will), don't be shocked at the initial 'sticker price'. Theoretically a wealth tax could replace some of the current income tax regime in many countries without creating a strict increased tax burden on their people. ie: if you owe $10k in income tax this year, but a $2k capital tax is instituted next year, then you are still in the same position as long as your income tax is reduced to $8k. Whether these taxes are effective/preferable or not is really a question of economics, not personal finance, so I will not belabour that point. Note: if the money you have saved earns money (interest, or dividends, or maybe rent from a condo you own), then those earnings are typically taxed alongside your wage income. Any 'wealth/capital tax' as I've described it above would be in addition to income tax on investment earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "491dd89d4c1e83d87c9a39f03e00fe85", "text": "I know all too well how it works. That doesn't change the fact that GE didn't pay taxes. If only my personal expenses such as food, gas, car maintenance, rent could be deducted from my tax liability and then when I operate on a loss (spend more than I receive) use that to get a tax refund. If corporations were people, why do they have a separate tax code? If corporations are people, they would be subject to the same tax code people are. We have so much corporate welfare via the tax code in this country, that it exceeds the amount of social welfare for poor people.", "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": "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": "74a8f28c7eb659da142b94cda4f6a897", "text": "Isn't that a deduction mostly used by the top 1%? There seem to be mostly 2 types of people, those who own many homes, And those that rent them... I always thought the mortgage interest deduction was used substantially more by the wealthy than the middle class... (Luxury homes also offer higher deductions right?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67e97c315357cc1ac6335a6f29b8e79", "text": "\"There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. \"\"Rich\"\" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4aa71bc5470147597db83be59cdb3e56", "text": "\"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the \"\"mega-rich\"\" are hedge fund managers \"\"who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate.\"\" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a56de6fe6adc204eaa9797811f0f34b", "text": "Rich people use debt for various reasons. The question should not assume that billionaires don't use debt. They also pay lower interest rates on that debt because they have enough collateral that their debt is safer than a typical mortgage. Many rich people will use interest only mortgages on their primary residences so that they can keep their stock earning at higher growth rates than the mortgage interest that they are paying all while writing off a portion of that mortgage interest on their taxes. Taking an artificially low salary and receiving equity for the larger portion of compensation is also a tax strategy to limit the amount of taxes owed on that income. If paid directly in stock grants, that will count as income, but if paid in options, then the purchased stock will only be taxed at the lower capital gains rates if the stock is held for a year after the options are exercised. Every billionaire will have complicated tax avoidance strategies that will require multi-year planning for the best long-term minimization of taxes. Debt is a strategic part of that planning. Also consider that a major part of that upscale lifestyle (corporate jets, fancy meals, etc.) is on the company dime because the CEO is always on the clock. As long as he is meeting with business prospects or doing other company business, those expenses will be justified for the corporation and not attributed as income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4de563418f99abb697400b8828af05ba", "text": "Standard deduction is $6300, and exemption is $4050, totaling $10,350. (For 2016) Twice this for a couple ($20,700). The tax on money just above this is 10%, so the few thousand above will be taxed at a few hundred dollars. Where are you getting the number you showed? Can you edit your question to clarify exactly what you are asking?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfaf8d7f007bef45c302a0396157f5e3", "text": "Is this right? The example is slightly off. Google would be running a cafeteria that can be subsidized. Employees pay an amount to buy food. Not every one spends the same amount or eats the same amount of food. If someone doesn't use cafeteria; he doesn't get more money. For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. If a scheme is devised specifically to evade taxes; then it is invalid. In this case Bill may buy groceries worth only $5000. So keep track of which employee buys how much groceries in added cost of Google. Plus one can't really call it a business expense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce251ce6d31823ac7124eae816392f7c", "text": "Do you have any insight on average *effective* rates paid by SE owners? As a counterpoint to your (very valid) links, filing as S-corp allows for taxes on distributions to be exempt from payroll tax and taxed at much lower rates. Also, being SE allows for various deductions not possible for wage earners. There's probably other examples not immediately coming to mind. Also, SE taxes equal taxes otherwise paid by employer + employee. It's just that those employer taxes don't appear on the employee's paystub so not everyone realizes this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f0f7aedd28a51c993e07637b5a79c4", "text": "\"You cannot deduct commute expenses. Regarding your specific example, something to consider is that if the standard of living is higher in San Francisco, presumably the wages are higher too. Therefore, you must make a choice to trade \"\"time and some money for commuting costs\"\" for \"\"even more money\"\" in the form of higher wages. For example, if you can make $50K working 2 hours away from SF, or $80K working in SF, and it costs you $5K extra per year in commute costs, you still come out ahead by $25K (minus taxes). If it ends up costing $20K more to live in SF (due to higher rent/mortgage/food/etc), some people choose to trade 4 extra hours of commuting time to put that extra $20K in their pocket. It's sort of like having an extra part time job, except you get paid to read/watch tv/sleep on the job (assuming you can take a train to work).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a5280605812e2385284b2802e8d5a509", "text": "Do Alice and Bob have to figure out the fair market value of their services and report that as income or something? Yes, exactly that. See Topic 420. Note that if the computer program is for Bob's business, Bob might be able to deduct it on his taxes. Similarly, if the remodeling is on Alice's business property, she might be able to deduct it. There might also be other tax advantages in certain circumstances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "598447d7fc5f43f2a053c5c29cf3c2a4", "text": "It's called bartering and the IRS has a page titled Four Things to Know About Bartering. The summary is - The bottom line is this is taxable.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "48aa72e0f6ae4c58204f8d146c9af0b7", "text": "All Bank fees were included in the service tax ambit [For example Check bounce, issue of duplicate statement, fees charged for remittance etc]. However as quite a few Banks structured the Remittance Business to show less charges and cover the difference in the Fx rate involved, the Govt has redone the service tax and one needs to pay Rs 120 for an amount of Rs 100,000. There is no way to avoid service tax on remittance if you are using a remittance service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9797c3ae43e312e7a4e29c26a0f28f57", "text": "If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b958ecddb6579a5edb96c07558272915", "text": "\"In most jurisdictions, both the goods (raw materials) and the service (class) are being \"\"sold\"\" to the customer, who is the end user and thus the sale is subject to sales tax. So, when your friend charges for the class, that $100 is subject to all applicable sales taxes for the jurisdiction and all parent jurisdictions (usually city, county and state). The teacher should not have to pay sales tax when they buy the flowers from the wholesaler; most jurisdictions charge sales tax on end-user purchases only. However, they are required to have some proof of sales tax exemption for the purchase, which normally comes part and parcel with the DBA or other business entity registration paperwork in most cities/states. Wholesalers deal with non-end-user sales (exempt from sales tax) all the time, but your average Michael's or Hobby Lobby may not be able to deal with this and may have to charge your friend the sales tax at POS. Depending on the jurisdiction, if this happens, your friend may be able to reduce the amount the customer is paying that is subject to sales tax by the pre-tax value of the materials the customer has paid for, which your friend already paid the tax on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5439eccba9927dbad2c3edb01e31dd", "text": "Such activity is normally referred to as bartering income. From the IRS site - You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 and Amended Returns for information on filing an amended return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f35f977f4958bf5092e2f8145f753a2f", "text": "Australian Goods and Services Tax is charged on the sale amount. Whatever internal accounting you do before billing the customer is of no interest to the Australian Tax Office.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd32fe9ac63a48f7adcb39dea2923ad9", "text": "I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b8ff6405ec069847836954c0674ea8", "text": "If it's a legitimate cost of doing business, it's as deductible as any other cost of doing business. (Reminder: be careful about the distinctions between employee and contractor; the IRS gets annoyed if you don't handle this correctly.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "265d27dfb5d41ee5453592f8dcd0d2bc", "text": "Its one of the main points. Transfer pricing includes discretionary decisions and is part of BEPS. Its also completely unnecessary: Pay taxes on revenue in country earned/sold. Get tax credits/refunds in country were spending is made. The reason why already profitable companies consider BEPS/tax arbitrage for HQ locations is because they get discretionary power over accounting profit allocation. Tax policy should serve the society though, and this proposal encourages the spending that benefits society. Its the usual case that the right answer is different than that being lobbied for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d6566768c428287ad67c19f059a13f8", "text": "\"Keep in mind that all of the information below assumes: That being said, here are some examples of national tax laws relating to barter transactions. Obviously this isn't an exhaustive list, but based on my grossly non-representative sample, I think it's fairly safe to assume that barter transactions are more likely taxable than not. You're referring to a barter system; in the United States, the IRS is very specific about this (see the section titled Bartering). Bartering is an exchange of property or services. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged is fully taxable and must be included on Form 1040 in the income of both parties. The IRS also provides more details: Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide or may provide under the bartering arrangement. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for amended return information. So yes, the net value of bartered goods or services is most likely taxable. According to the Australian Tax Office: Barter transactions are assessable and deductible for income tax purposes to the same extent as other cash or credit transactions. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs states that: If you supply services or goods (new or second-hand) and receive other goods or services in payment, there are two separate supplies: You must account for VAT, and so must your customer if they're VAT-registered. The VAT treatment is the same as for part-exchanges. You must both account for VAT on the amounts you would each have paid for the goods or services if there had been no barter and they had been paid for with money. Searching the website of the Federal Tax Service for the Russian/Cryllic word for barter (бартер) doesn't yield any results, but that might be because even between Google Translate and the rest of the internet, I don't speak Russian. That being said, I did manage to find this (translated from the first full paragraph of the Russian, beginning with \"\"Налог на доходы...\"\": The tax on personal income is paid by citizens of the Russian Federation with all types of income received by them in the calendar year, either in cash or in kind. Since bartering would probably qualify as an in kind transaction, it would likely be taxable. The South African Revenue Service includes barter transactions in the supply of goods taxed under the VAT. The term “supply” is defined very broadly and includes all forms of supply and any derivative of the term, irrespective of where the supply is effected. The term includes performance in terms of a sale, rental agreement, instalment credit agreement or barter transaction. Look for section 3.6, Supply and Taxable Supply, found on p17 of the current version of the linked document.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46a36a35ae2c95ebde6fa7d46367d2ac", "text": "Disclaimer: I am not a tax specialist You probably need a sales tax permit if you're going to sell goods, since just about every state taxes goods, though some states have exemptions for various types of goods. For services, it gets tricker. There is a database here that lists what services are taxed in what states; in Wyoming, for example, cellphone services and diaper services are taxed, while insurance services and barber services are not. For selling over the internet, it gets even dicier. There's a guide on nolo.com that claims to be comprehensive; it states that the default rule of thumb is that if you have a physical presence in a state, such as a warehouse or a retail shop or an office, you must collect tax on sales in that state. Given your situation, you probably only need to collect sales tax on customers in Wyoming. Probably. In any event, I'd advice having a chat with an accountant in Wyoming who can help walk you through what permits may or may not be needed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0e89d948d1a3eeeb4332ed2e5712a2a", "text": "Tax Deducted at source is applicable to Employee / Employer [contract employee] relations ... it was also made applicable for cases where an Indian company pays for software products [like MS Word etc] as the product is not sold, but is licensed and is treated as Royalty [unlike sale of a consumer product, that you have, say car] ... Hence it depends on how your contract is worded with your India clients, best is have it as a service agreement. Although services are also taxed, however your contract should clearly specify that any tax in India would be borne by your Indian Client ... Cross Country taxation is an advanced area, you will not find good advice free :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d76b0aa423ae2d10652b65376f7b65d4", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "d0d3389d1c8d60b52ffff6b5f878ec11", "text": "\"Of course. The rationale is exactly the same as always: profit is taxed. The fact that you use intermediate barter to make that profit is irrelevant. To clarify, as it seems that you think it makes a difference that no money \"\"changed hands\"\". Consider this situation: So far your cost is $10000. How will the tax authority address this? They will look at the fair market value of the barter. You got gold worth of $20000. So from their perspective, you got $20000, and immediately exchanged it into gold. What does it mean for you? That you're taxed on the $10000 gain you made on your product X (the $20000 worth of barter that you received minus the $10000 worth of work/material/expenses that you spend on producing the merchandise), and that you have $20000 basis in the gold that you now own. If in a year, when you plan to sell the gold, its price drops - you can deduct investment losses. If its price goes up - you'll have investment gain. But for the gain you're making on your product X you will pay taxes now, because that's when you realized it - sold the merchandize and received in return something else of a value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a51c9ca986fa7b362dce41bd2e9c1e30", "text": "The HST is a sales tax levied on most goods and services. It is important to realize that in both BC and Ontario, the new HST does not (in most cases) result in an increase in sales tax paid. For example, in Ontario the PST is 8% and when combined with the GST the sales tax is 13%. With the HST, the GST and PST are replaced by a single HST of 13% so the tax bill does not change. Some services that were previously not subject to PST (such as mutual fund service fees and labour) will now be subject to the HST. So some things will increase. Over time, this should not have a material impact on the consumer due to the way businesses remit GST/HST.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "819197acdc0e88afc44350dcccd999eb", "text": "\"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "71895907b50a404d9be614264fbc3feb", "text": "I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13", "text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44f7f02ebc9b4bba410c9a805b9ed00d", "text": "\"If you have income - it should appear on your tax return. If you are a non-resident, that would be 1040NR, with the eBay income appearing on line 21. Since this is unrelated to your studies, this income will not be covered by the tax treaties for most countries, and you'll pay full taxes on it. Keep in mind that the IRS may decide that you're actually having a business, in which case you'll be required to attach Schedule C to your tax return and maybe pay additional taxes (mainly self-employment). Also, the USCIS may decide that you're actually having a business, regardless of how the IRS sees it, in which case you may have issues with your green card. For low income from occasional sales, you shouldn't have any issues. But if it is something systematic that you spend significant time on and earn significant amounts of money - you may get into trouble. What's \"\"systematic\"\" and how much is \"\"significant\"\" is up to a lawyer to tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afe19c20847f0e7a9a756d6cabf039b6", "text": "Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f606e46f617b6ebdb7a16cbc4008215d", "text": "\"First you must understand your Marginal Tax Rate (Tax Bracket) The exemptions you claim are like saying to your employer \"\"tax me on $4050 less, or more\"\" for each change up or down of 1 exemption. Say you look at the table (2016 tables at my main site) and see you are in the 15% bracket. And your refund is $2000. 2000/.15 is $13,333. So you want that $13K to not be taxed. Raising exemptions by 3 (3x4050 = 12,150) will get you close. $1822 closer to your goal. For what it's worth, you can read through the instructions for the W4, of course. But this answer skips through the details and gets you to your goal. One point to note, since the exemption is in whole numbers, and $4050 is it, you will get close, +/- $608 if in the 15% bracket, but to get dead on, you'd need a mid year adjustment. Not worth it. A refund of under $608 should be enough for a 15%er. ($1012 for a 25%er) If you ready want to nail the taxes to a closer accuracy, you can use the line requesting additional dollars be withheld. Most W4 discussions miss this point. The exact number withheld by your employer comes from an IRS document known as Circular E, but retrieved as Publication 15. It will help you confirm the validity of my dirty shortcut method. What I do recommend is that you use a quick online tax calculator to do a dry run of you return, early in the year. If you see your withholding is off in either direction, best to adjust as soon as possible. (The numbers here now reflect 2016's $4050 exemption, recent question on Money.SE have linked to this one, prompting me to update for 2016)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c3f715ad21d7342bb9dcc0b681bad51", "text": "\"As ApplePie discusses, \"\"tax bracket\"\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \"\"tax bracket\"\" or your Federal \"\"tax bracket\"\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \"\"combined state and federal tax bracket\"\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \"\"alternative minimum tax\"\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \"\"earned income\"\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \"\"self employment taxes\"\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d85c285b00fc847c24726b4047723ea", "text": "This is a common occurrence, I know people who moved and then only remember the next spring during tax season that they never filed a new state version of a W-4. Which means for 3 or 4 months in the new year money is sent to the wrong state capital, and way too much was sent the previous year. In the spring of 2016 you should have filed a non-resident tax form with Michigan. On that form you would specify your total income numbers, your Michigan income numbers, and your other-state income numbers; with Michigan + other equal to total. That should have resulted in getting all the state taxes that were sent to Michigan returned. It is possible that the online software is unable to complete the non-resident tax form. Not all forms and situations can be addressed by the software. So you may need to fill out paper forms. You should be able to find what you need on the state of Michigan website for 2015 Taxes. A quick read shows that you will probably need the Michigan 1040, schedule 1 and Schedule NR You may run into an issue if your license, car registration, voter registration, and other documentation point to you being a resident for the part of the year you earned that income. That means you will have to submit Form 3799 Statement to Determine State of Domicile You want to do this soon because there are deadlines that limit how far back you can files taxes. The state may also get tax information from the IRS and could decide that all your income from 2015 should have applied to them, so they will be sending you a tax bill plus penalties for failure to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f65d96de623386d5e4864d46eaf2ed", "text": "\"You are on the right track, for tax purposes its all ordinary income at the end of 2016. If the free lance \"\"employer\"\" will withhold fed,state and local tax, then that takes care of your estimated tax. If they can't or won't, you will need to make those estimates and make payments quarterly for the fed and state tax at your projected tax liability. Or, you can bump up withholding by your day job employer and cover your expected tax liability at year end without making estimated tax payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f012c327a053717409f2d055434bc7a", "text": "Basically, it will depend on the documents your employer gives you. If your employer gives you a 2015 W-2 then you would claim it as income on your 2015 taxes. If the first W-2 they give you is for 2016, then you claim it on your 2016 taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5", "text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b17812fbcc51ba2eaa7f18c455796b30", "text": "Should I have a W-2 re-issued? A W-2 can be corrected and a new copy will be filed with the IRS if your employer incorrectly reported your income and withholding on a W-2 that they issued. In this case, though the employer didn't withhold those taxes, they should not reissue the W-2 unless they plan to pay your portion of the payroll taxes that were not withheld. (If they paid your share of the taxes, that would increase your gross income.) Who pays for the FICA I should have paid last year? Both you and your employer owe 7.65% each for FICA taxes. By law your employer is required to pay their half and you are required to pay your half. Both you and your employer owe additional taxes because of this mistake. Your other questions assume that your employer will pay your portion of the taxes withheld. You employer could decide to do that, but this also assumes that it was your employer's fault that the mistakes were made. If you transitioned to resident alien but did not inform your employer, how is that your employer's fault?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d7f93ee7c7ab730f251aa41b95bf28", "text": "\"If you are a permanent resident (and it wasn't taken away or abandoned), then you are a resident alien for U.S. tax purposes. (One of the two tests for being a resident alien is the \"\"green card test\"\".) Being a resident alien means all your worldwide income is subject to U.S. taxes, regardless of where you live or work. That doesn't necessarily mean you need to actually pay taxes on your income again if you've already paid it -- you may be able to use the Foreign Tax Credit to reduce your taxes by the amount already paid to a foreign government -- but you need to report it on U.S. tax forms just like income from the U.S., and you can then apply any tax credits that you may qualify for. As a resident alien, you file taxes using Form 1040. You are required to file taxes if your income for a particular year is above a certain threshold. This threshold is described in the first few pages of the 1040 instructions for each year. For 2013, for Single filing status under 65, it is $10000. The only way you can legally not file is if your income the whole year was below this amount. You should go back and file taxes if you were required to but failed to. Having filed taxes when required is very important if you want to naturalize later on. It is also one component of demonstrating you're maintaining residency in the U.S., which you're required to do as a permanent resident being outside the U.S. for a long time, or else you'll lose your permanent residency. (Even filing taxes might not be enough, as your description of your presence in the U.S. shows you only go there for brief periods each year, not really living there. You're lucky you haven't lost your green card already; any time you go there you run a great risk of them noticing and taking it away.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de65a195799a90cbf017660532c71024", "text": "Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes these principles as applied to the enumerated states: STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity: California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact. Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act. Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York effectively follows this provision of the Act. Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e2e8a2005ee6a4a2493d39a3913215c3", "text": "If you don't track the accrued costs involved, then it means that the valuation of the deal will be somewhat arbitrary, but it still can be made by looking at the value of equivalent or similar goods or services. It's rather similar to accounting treatment of (noncash) gifts, for example. You make up a valuation, and as there are obvious tax reasons to make it as low as possible, the valuation should be justifiable or you risk the wrath of IRS. If you sell the same goods or services for cash, then the value of the barter deal is obvious. If this barter is the only time you're handling this particular type of goods, a wholesale price of similar items (either of your items, or the items that you're receiving in barter) could work.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7a0db3a6ebee00e142ce84292f72158", "text": "There are two basic issues here. First, there is the difference between accounting terms and their dictionary definitions. Second, once you dig into it there are dichotomies similar to put vs call options, long sales vs short sales, bond yield vs interest rate. (That is, while they are relatively simple ideas and opposite sides of the same coin, it will probably take some effort to get comfortable with them.) The salient points from the Wikipedia article on debits and credits: In double-entry bookkeeping debit is used for increases in asset and expense transactions and credit is used for increases in a liability, income (gain) or equity transaction. For bank transactions, money deposited in a checking account is treated as a credit transaction (increase) and money paid out is treated as a debit transaction, because checking account balances are bank liabilities. If cash is deposited, the cash becomes a bank asset and is treated as a debit transaction (increase) to a bank asset account. Thus a cash deposit becomes two equal increases: a debit to cash on hand and a credit to a customer's checking account. Your bank account is an asset to you, but a liability to your bank. That makes for a third issue, namely perspective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "977c491090bccd98c5020fd2ef786445", "text": "If you can live with managing the individual category amounts yourself, this is trivial. Just set up a spreadsheet listing each category (and a column for the total amount of money in the account), adding or subtracting as you deposit or withdraw money to the account. To the bank it will be just one (physical) account, but to you, it can be any number of (accounting asset) accounts. You can choose to keep a history, or not. It's all up to how complex you want to make it. It doesn't even have to be a spreadsheet - you can just as well do this on paper if you prefer that. But the computer makes it easier. I imagine most personal finance software will help you, too; I know GnuCash can be coaxed into doing this with only a bit of creativity, and it almost certainly isn't the only one. I do this myself and it works very well. I don't know but imagine that companies do it all the time: there is no reason why there must be a one-to-one relationship between bank accounts and accounting asset accounts, and in fact, doing so would probably quickly become impractical.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1757b028d75e69e0e93402a12b746d1b", "text": "One way you can accomplish this is on a cruise ship. Most cruise ships have casinos, and most will allow you to sign out chips at the casino cage. You can then exchange the chips for cash. The chips that were signed for are resolved as room charges. Those room charges can be charged to a CC. Those signed for chips are rolled into the total room charges and are thus not treated as a cash advance. The cost of the cruise not with standing, you could earn money in that form. Step off the boat, deposit cash in the bank, and send a check to the CC company. All that being said, it is an cheap and safe way to get cash while you are traveling in that method.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a146caa7bf18a4dd8ca61d8e4b35c5ef", "text": "There are four sides to this transaction. You increase in money: A debit. (increases your Current Assets, if you will) You also gain the requirement to pay that money in the future. A credit: Definitely a Liability. When you repay the money, your cash will decrease: a credit, and your liabilities will also decrease, which is a debit (since you don't have to repay the money anymore). the account would be short-term loans, the money doesn't have a name, it's just cash and would go into whatever cash accounts you have. The bookkeeping entry would be the same as you would make for any short-term loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16c971d462a23ed54ab3fe14c517f1e1", "text": "It's so wonderful. Through the magic of fractional reserve banking, a bank the vast majority of the time is loaning out money they created from thin air. And if you don't pay the obligation, they get a yacht, personal jet, or racehorse in return! Now, of course having to repossess something might be undesirable in an accounting context, but it still beggars belief that basically the entire economy and money supply of the developed world is based on obligations backed by nothing, by private parties, created out of thin air.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcd38157a511bc50fe008087a8d2c7d3", "text": "\"According to this discussion, there was a Tax Court ruling that likened deductibility for charitable giving by credit card to business expenses incurred by businesses operating under cash-basis accounting. (The point is made by Larry Hess on that site.) Short answer: According to this argument, you can claim the deduction when the charge is incurred. You don't have to wait until you pay it back. (Again this is for cash basis.) Publication 538 states that \"\"under the cash method of accounting, you generally deduct business expenses in the tax year you pay them.\"\" I think the ruling above was meant to clarify when the expense is \"\"paid\"\". In my totally unofficial opinion, I suppose this makes sense. If I go to Office Depot to buy a box of envelopes, I walk out with the envelopes at the same time regardless of whether I paid cash or swiped a credit card. I wouldn't walk out thinking: \"\"HA! I haven't actually paid for these yet.\"\" If the shoplifting alarm went off at the door and I was asked if I had bought those, I'd say yes, right? If this doesn't convince you, you can always get professional tax advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d718680b0cd151f64d4cb4d777842e0", "text": "\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dde42cb2eb328499f4a02f6e692de0e", "text": "You report each position separately. You do this on form 8949. 7 positions is nothing, it will take you 5 minutes. There's a tip on form 8949 that says this, though: For Part I (short term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all short-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 1a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). For Part II (long term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all long-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 8a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). If the 1099B in your case shows basis for each transaction as reported to the IRS - you're in luck, and don't have to type them all in separately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10d9f9670fe70075b14cc479478ba1a2", "text": "No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60e096d50149b10d70b6d360eeb8e2f8", "text": "This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b987480a00109e250c5865bd585c4a7f", "text": "\"If you are considering this to be an entry for your business this is how you would handle it.... You said you were making a balance sheet for monthly expenses. So on the Balance Sheet, you would be debiting cash. For the Income Statement side you would be crediting Owner's Equity to balance the equation: Assets = Liabilities + Owner's Equity So if you deposited $100 to your account the equation would be affected thus: $ 100 in Assets (Debit to Cash Account) = 0 Liabilities - $100 (Credit to Owner's Equity) It is correctly stated above from the bank's perspective that they would be \"\"Crediting\"\" you account with $100, and any outflow from the bank account would be debiting your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cd90409b08fcc132c07d7a7e6bf9286", "text": "Bartering is a tricky discussion. Yes, it definitely applies when you are self-employed and do a job that you would charge anyone else for, but what if you are helping a friend in your spare time? If you receive something in exchange, the value of the item you received would be your income, but what if you don't receive anything in exchange? If the company bought a computer that they loan to you to do occasional work for them, there's no reason you couldn't take the computer home and have that company retain ownership of the property. They could still expense the depreciation of the computer without giving it to you. If it were a car though, you would have to count mileage for personal use as income. What if you exchange occasional tech support for the use of an empty desk and Internet connection? As long as they aren't renting desks for money to others, there's probably no additional marginal cost to them if they allow you to use the space, so the fair market value question breaks down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd5a609ff0af22f0dfe21f960324295d", "text": "\"It seems like this was a \"\"stock for stock\"\" transaction. That is, your company was acquired, not for cash, but for the stock of Company X in a deal that your company's board of directors \"\"signed off\"\" on. Your company no longer exists, and that's why your stock was cancelled. The acquirer will be sending you an equivalent amount of stock in their Company, X. You don't need to worry about taxes, only accounting, because this is a \"\"non-cash\"\" transaction. What this means that your cost basis in the stock of Company X will be what you paid for the original company's stock (not its value on the day of the merger, which may be higher or lower than what you paid).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32", "text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6da3ec1ab9296aa05074dbbc608a1c5c", "text": "\"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for \"\"stock on hand\"\". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or \"\"equity\"\"), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"Stock on hand\"\" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset \"\"Accounts receivable\"\" by $700. Credit (increase) Income \"\"Sales\"\" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"Cost of goods sold\"\" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"checking account\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense \"\"wedding expenses\"\" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability \"\"credit card\"\" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset \"\"cash\"\" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset \"\"cash\"\". Credit (decrease) Capital \"\"shareholder equity\"\". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it \"\"capital\"\", others call it \"\"equity\"\"): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big \"\"one thing\"\". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a \"\"debit\"\" or a \"\"credit\"\". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "40360b49e289a7118e858513501b2fb8", "text": "I think this is off topic, but here is a stab: So these are cashless. It could be a way to smooth out the harsh reality of capitalism (I overproduced my product, I have more capacity than I can sell) and I can trade those good to other capitalists who similarly poorly planned production or capacity. Therefore the market for a system like is limited to businesses that do not plan well. Business that plan production or capacity to levels they can already sell for cash do not need a private system to offload goods. Alternatives to such a system include: (I don't know how many businesses are really in this over production / over capacity state. If my assumption that it isn't many is wrong, my answer is garbage.) This is a bartering system with a brokerage. I think we have historically found that common currencies create more trade and economic activity because the value of the note in your pocket, which is the same type of note in my pocket, is common and understood. Exchange rates typically slow down trade. (There are many other reasons to have different currency or notes on a global sale, but the exchange certainly is a hurdle to clear.) This brokerage is essentially adding a new currency (in a grand metaphor). And that new currency is only spendable on their brokerage, which is of limited use to society as a whole, assuming that society as a whole isn't a participating member of that brokerage. I can't really think of why this type of exchange is better than the current system we have now. I wouldn't invest in this as a business, or invest in this as a person looking for opportunity.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0c2c9c130645d49832b4a83c7a1b772d", "text": "I don't know if vanilla beans are traded on any organized exchange, and if they are, it's probably extremely obscure and very hard to access without having both of a lot of money and in-country connections. Edit: no, they're not. So there is no real way to short them. https://www.ft.com/content/e0e2fc16-28db-11e7-bc4b-5528796fe35c?mhq5j=e2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1bc83aba8d1e3c106be922149a80c466", "text": "This guy is literally proposing a bucket shop. Trades against customers and copy their trades. No centralized clearing (it's not executing trades at all). And he thinks these are good things that customers should get him for. Scam. And a very old one at that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1f971e5df4506e6bc1077d7753c9161", "text": "\"No, I'm sorry, but the fact that exchanges allow \"\"pay to play\"\" privelege to scalp orders is fairly well established at this time. It's skirts law simply because the exchanges don't profit *directly* from it. I understand that folks are upset that SEC is looking into turning off this free money faucet, but harranguing Katsayuma for opening a fair exchange that shuns the practice is a point of contention for me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce47a05f533def8a477949d494e2707e", "text": "Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "728e392d990ee0646c3ba5fc4c399afe", "text": "\"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa201189bdfec5bd9d4e1380f29f863d", "text": "Most investors vote with their wallets. I expect ZERO glitches from a trading platform. If someone was actually causing trades to fail maliciously, their reputation would immediately suffer and their business would dry up over night. You can't just play dumb and not respond to a button click. I can watch and replay the traffic I'm sending out to their server and see if they are responding to verify this. If their system goes down and has no redundancy, that is their fault and opens them to lawsuits. No trading platform could withstand scrutiny from its users if it was dishonest in the scenario you imagine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746fadc47e6606d3a1730a15c59391f2", "text": "I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b20c6a5a5c7ade576e954c164b0a7253", "text": "How easy is it to take out your money? To they offer any trading? Do you have to put more money up on your own to trade with? This seems pretty sketchy. I am currently working at a prop trading firm and although some sketchy firms require you to make a deposit, most legit ones do not. Not to mention their commissions are incredibly high (I interviewed at another sketchy firm but only charges a couple cents for commission). >most of the time you get rebates on them If it is not explicitly stated in the contract of how they decide your rebates than don't expect much. Most of the trading industry is build around taking advantage of people where people's word soon becomes meaningless unless it is in writing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41734e5f71ad45eb45327676b3ef67da", "text": "\"The success rate is terrible. At the same time, what are the success rate for any business endeavor? Isn't it something like 80% of startups fail in the first 5 years? That's not far off for the success of traders. Just like all the success cliches say, it comes down to how bad you want it. What will you sacrifice to be a successful trader? How much will you work to be a successful trader? Will you accept the pain and failure it takes to be a trader? Who cares if \"\"soandso\"\" can do it? If you want it, you should be saying, \"\"I will do it because I say so\"\". Only you know if you're willing to take the risk. At the same time, you're a college student, what's the worst that will happen if it doesn't work out? Check out /r/getmotivated...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5c671699b2c194916502a7a365a692", "text": "\"I think you're right that these sites look so unprofessional that they aren't likely to be legitimate. However, even a very legitimate-looking site might be a fake designed to separate you from your money. There is an entire underground industry devoted to this kind of fakery and some of them are adept at what they do. So how can you tell? One place that you can consult is FINRA's BrokerCheck online service. This might be the first of many checks you should undertake. Who is FINRA, you might ask? \"\"The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States.\"\" See here. My unprofessional guess is, even if a firm's line of business is to broker deals in private company shares, that if they're located in the U.S. or else dealing in U.S. securities then they'd still need to be registered with FINRA – note the \"\"all securities firms\"\" above. I was able to search BrokerCheck and find SecondMarket (the firm @duffbeer703 mentioned) listed as \"\"Active\"\" in the FINRA database. The entry also provides some information about the firm. For instance, SecondMarket appears to also be registered with the S.E.C.. You should also note that SecondMarket links back to these authorities (refer to the footer of their site): \"\"Member FINRA | MSRB | SIPC. Registered with the SEC as an alternative trading system for trading in private company shares. SEC 606 Info [...]\"\" Any legitimate broker would want you to look them up with the authorities if you're unsure about their legitimacy. However, to undertake any such kind of deal, I'd still suggest more due diligence. An accredited investor with serious money to invest ought to, if they are not already experts themselves on these things, hire a professional who is expert to provide counsel, help navigate the system, and avoid the frauds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f98342a46aadd4f3c7192e8b9415206c", "text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d410df70f15fa6b3c0b7476264502873", "text": "Yeah, it can be a scam. Lots of unscrupulous companies try to generate commissions by encouraging frequent trading - I can't recall the term they use right now, but I don't like to use these people for advice. My bank has 100 free trades per year for each account, which is more than enough for me to never pay a commission.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf001967728581cbc9cf897c10f6944", "text": "\"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b047dc87c3ad4c48201382f49eba180a", "text": "Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8bc5ac6fc7eafb3ec03c29d82e651ec", "text": "\"The London Stock Exchange offers a wealth of exchange traded products whose variety matches those offered in the US. Here is a link to a list of exchange traded products listed on the LSE. The link will take you to the list of Vanguard offerings. To view those offered by other managers, click on the letter choices at the top of the page. For example, to view the iShares offerings, click on \"\"I\"\". In the case of Vanguard, the LSE listed S&P500 ETF is traded under the code VUSA. Similarly, the Vanguard All World ETF trades under the code VWRL. You will need to be patient viewing iShares offerings since there are over ten pages of them, and their description is given by the abbreviation \"\"ISH name\"\". Almost all of these funds are traded in GBP. Some offer both currency hedged and currency unhedged versions. Obviously, with the unhedged version you are taking on additional currency risk, so if you wish to avoid currency risk then choose a currency hedged version. Vanguard does not appear to offer currency hedged products in London while iShares does. Here is a list of iShares currency hedged products. As you can see, the S&P500 currency hedged trades under the code IGUS while the unhedged version trades under the code IUSA. The effects of BREXIT on UK markets and currency are a matter of opinion and difficult to quantify currently. The doom and gloom warnings of some do not appear to have materialised, however the potential for near-term volatility remains so longs as the exit agreement is not formalised. In the long-term, I personally believe that BREXIT will, on balance, be a positive for the UK, but that is just my opinion.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "722243166b6236c501137f08e8c5929c", "text": "\"It depends on what exactly do you mean by \"\"seat of residence\"\". That term has different meanings (legally) in different countries and different contexts. If you're foreigner (even from within the EU), any czech bank will most likely ask you to provide a residence permit. Here are some details: http://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/third-country-nationals-long-term-residence.aspx http://www.czech.cz/en/Business/How-it-works-here/Making-business/How-to-open-a-bank-account-%E2%80%93-Part-1\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2bcc07d2a1ecf891d4e6b74729d40f57", "text": "In addition to the other answers, Harris Bank (now owned by BMO) allows Canadians living in Canada to open accounts, perhaps they consider other countries as well. They have excellent customer service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4df97f35153bdedf4bf9c3089a968a4", "text": "You're most definitely being scammed. You're being asked all the information required to steal your identity and take over your bank account. And Austria is land-locked, it has no west coast (or any coast, for that matter).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a96d117587982e48e6551829af00c8bf", "text": "Of course you can. My assumption is you are/will be in UK. I am a student from outside the UK and I am about to start studying at a UK university/college/school. How do I choose which bank is best for me? You should be able to open a ‘basic bank account’ with a number of different banks. A ‘basic bank account’ provides easy access to banking facilities for adults in the UK. Additionally, some banks offer a bank account tailored specifically for your needs as an international student. There is a table on pages 6 & 7 of this leaflet that has a list of basic accounts and other accounts that may be suitable along with brief descriptions of some of their features. Most banks don’t ask you to pay in any money to open a basic account. You should look around to see which bank and account suit you best and then visit the local branch of the bank you have chosen. You may also be able to get other types of account, as detailed in the next section. Please speak to a bank Go through the source I have linked. It is a bit old, but has relevant information for you. SOURCE", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17299afec6fb8f94e38f7bee72aadc43", "text": "\"Yes, it is, under some circumstances (basically, a piece of paper saying \"\"John Doe borrowed Josh Shoe 100 USD\"\" is not enough). Usually, the paper should include: This is the case for Czech Republic, I believe it's similar for other countries as well. Remember that without the repair date, you have very complicated position forcing the person to give you the money back. As well, there's a withdrawal of rights, i.e. after X years after the \"\"repair date\"\", you cannot force the person to give you the money. You have to send the case to the court in some period after the \"\"repair date\"\", if you don't have the money yet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09e0ca4cba8ddc88883306ee7d79eac", "text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ba3ae6663acc704b2844e46809c81b", "text": "U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba2a0873a0a994e1a55a97a56a394542", "text": "\"The answer is, unfortunately, along the lines of \"\"it depends\"\". It does depend a little on the bank - I've had a US bank account for years before moving to the US, and I didn't have an SSN or any status when I opened the account. What I did have however was an address in the US that they could send the statements to, and proof that I was living abroad (oh, and US citizen wife that had an account with the same bank). Not all banks will open a bank account for a foreigner with no status in the US, but it is generally possible. You will have to check with several banks and basically have paperwork showing your foreign address and proof of id (passport, possibly a drivers license as well).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1dac56971cd12de901cc898d434ef11", "text": "Why not open an USD account or subaccount in Czechia and then transfer the money using an UAE bank that supports transfers in USD. If you don't want to open an USD account in Czechia, it'll get converted when received there into the currency of your account but at their conversion rate which probably isn't good. Alternatively, use Transferwise which might or might not be cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3ce8bacc740681e28a510fcf623ffdc", "text": "\"This is an advanced fee scam you do not have any money in a foreign account nor will paying any taxes or fees get that money. A clue is that the Constitution of the United Kingdom has no mention of taxes and is also not organized into sections in a manner like \"\"4.11\"\". If you really want to confirm this. You should be able to contact the UK branch of Investec Bank. They would be able to confirm the means that they would use to contact individuals with account issues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3eaacc24784c090d2d5bdb857dcd3a9", "text": "\"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with \"\"guarantees\"\" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say \"\"But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!\"\" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The \"\"bulletproof\"\" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeca0a2b4af05100ffe716150b4feb26", "text": "\"I'm pretty sure that the banks here will only allow a joint account with either all citizens or all \"\"foreign resident\"\" or tourists. You may be able to do something with Leumi since they have a US branch in NYC. What many people do (who are US citizens) is open a bank account either at a physical branch or online and then it can be managed all online. Make sure no monthly balance fees or atm fees etc. If you need to transfer money most banks will \"\"buy\"\" a US check (I have done this with Leumi) or you can go to the ATM and pull out a few thousand shekel from the USA account and deposit it right back into the Israeli account. My wife and I did this when we first arrived. Discount Bank seemed to have no fees for pulling money out and a good USD/ILS rate. Just make sure you don't have foreign transaction fees / high rates on the US account. If you need to deposit checks for him you can use the remote deposit feature and just take a picture. בהצלחה!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0383a3d4efc2433af856ac82cdaa3e04", "text": "\"Do you guys know any options that are accessible to any global citizen? Prepaid and stored value cards are anonymous. For an arbitrary reason, the really anonymous ones only allow you to load $500 but there is no regulation that dictates this amount. In the USA, these cards are exempt from being declared at border crossings. Not because they look like credit cards, but because they are exempt by the US Treasury and Customs. The cons is that there are generally fees to use them. US DOJ has done research showing that some groups take advantage of the exemption moving upwards of $50,000 a day between borders, but Congress is fine with this exemption and the burden is always on the government to determine \"\"illicit origin\"\". Stigmatizing how money is moved is only a 30 year old phenomenon, but many free nations do not really have capital controls, they only care that you pay taxes and that the integrity of their stock markets are upheld. Aside from that there are no qualms about anonymity, except from your neighbors but they dont matter for a global citizen. In theory, the UK should have more flexibility in anonymity options, such as stored value cards with higher limits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0088bde6c38469a9d3f530543bfd529d", "text": "\"The thing about the Swiss banks is that the accounts there were \"\"anonymous\"\", that's why it's such a famous example. Until not so long ago, the access to the account was by a password, and no-one knew whose account it is and to whom the money belongs. That's perfect for money laundering and various illegal activities (like hiding bribe money, stolen money, evading taxes and what not). The US pressured Swiss to cancel that policy, and now the Swiss banks are basically the same as everywhere else (there are other off-shore places that still allow similar anonymous accounts, I think). Having an account abroad is usually legal (depends on the country of your citizenship of course, I think in Canada there's no law against that, certainly not in the US), as long as you declare everything and the owners of the accounts are not anonymous, and their ID's were verified by the bank. By the way, one of the former Israeli Prime Ministers, Itzhak Rabin, had to resign his post because journalists found out that his wife had a bank account in the US. In that time (late 1970's) it was illegal for Israeli citizens to have accounts in foreign banks. Similar laws were in the USSR, and most (if not all) of the Eastern block. All of these countries no longer forbid foreign bank accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04c94c58cc1e469ef411466c4daa4f9", "text": "\"The €100'000 limit is per bank, where \"\"bank\"\" is defined as a financial institution with a banking license from one of the ECB members. \"\"WeltSparen\"\", is operated by the MHB-Bank which is a German bank, recognized by the Bundesbank. That means your money is initially guaranteed by the Bundesbank. When it's moved to the final saving account, you'll be saving at other banks, which are identified in the individual offerings. This can be an effective technique to split capitals in excess of €100.000. You should obviously look for banks that are backed by ECB member banks, but keep in mind what happened to Iceland: the national banks can also fail. In particular, the Bank of Italy at the moment is looking a bit shaky because Monte dei Paschi di Siena is currently failing and will require a bail-out. There's no official back-up for failing national banks within the ECB system.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b28e315b2bebc5522b126396f8d62c5", "text": "\"Yes, kinda. Talk to local banks about a business account, and tell them you want to enable certain employees to make deposits but not withdrawals. They don't need to know you're all the same person. For instance I have a PayPal account for business. These allow you to create \"\"sub accounts\"\" for your employees with a variety of access privileges. Of course I control the master account, but I also set up a \"\"sub account\"\" for myself. That is the account I use every day.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "897b1fcdfb82e4434aab17ca5ed7baa9", "text": "You can increase your monthly cash flow in two ways: It's really that simple. I'd even argue that to a certain extent, decreasing expenses can be more cash-positive than increasing income by the same amount if you're spending post-tax money because increasing income generally increases your taxes. So if you have a chunk of cash and you want to increase your cash flow, you could decrease debt (like Chris suggested) and it would have the same effect on your monthly cash flow. Or you could invest in something that pays a dividend or pays interest. There are many options other than real estate, including dividend-paying stocks or funds, CDs, bonds, etc. To get started you could open an account with any of the major brokerage firms and get suggestions from their financial professionals, usually for free. They'll help you look at the risk/reward aspects of various investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03a0fb7b8594a2f775d15ddeccc01168", "text": "Brownbag your lunch and make coffee at home. If your current lifestyle includes daily takeout lunches and/or barista-made drinks, a rough estimate is you have a negative cash flow of $8-20 per day, $40-100 per week, $2080-5200 per year. If you have daily smoothies, buy a blender. If you have daily lattes buy an espresso maker. I recently got myself a sodastream and it's been worth it. Until you have a six figure portfolio, you aren't going to swing a comparable annual return differential based on asset allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e502be83fed29fd4641cda992b6c127", "text": "\"Mutual funds can be relatively low risk and a good starting point. Really it depends on you. What are your goals? This is a pretty open ended question. These can all be low risk and provide some return. Note \"\"Less Knowledge\"\" is never a good qualifier for an investment. Your money is your business and you are entitled to know what your business is up to.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9a16a61b5e77e41d84d20a0c0d0e8781", "text": "The best investment opportunity that guarantees unending cash flows. You will get a replicated website with your own payment button that opens unending and continuous flow of $5 payments directly into your account. There are other biz opportunities (complete home base business) inside the member area. All these opportunities will be yours in less than 10 minutes. Respond to this ad now and start your journey to prosperity", "title": "" }, { "docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33", "text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"", "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": "fc8424217a86294ba50e8a485dea0f79", "text": "\"Pay cash. You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have. At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you \"\"borrow\"\" at 0% instead of buying in cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "266fde9704582a3f139f5690f61fda24", "text": "What does your cash flow look like? If you can comfortably afford to pay the extra cost and ride out the mortgage, it can be a nice investment. Better if you can manage the property yourself and are somewhat handy. Realize you should be able to raise rents over time so that it is cash flow even eventually. If cash flow is tight, sell it and re-fi your current place", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a5505c4337f438c896c4c4fe254687", "text": "\"A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 \"\"invested\"\" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "983de4d284b10120ef321f3cfd394987", "text": "There is (almost) always money involved somewhere, but it doesn't have to come from you. It can be investors, credit cards, or even seller-financing (I've done all 3). Examples: If you can find partners with the money to make the deals happen, then your job is to put the deal together. Find the properties, negotiate the price, even get the property under contract (all without any obligation or cost on your part... yes it absolutely can be done). Then your partners will fund the deal if it's good enough and their terms are met, etc. In some areas you can put a property on a credit card. If you find a house say for $25,000 that will rent for $300/month, and you can put it on a credit card (especially at zero percent for a year or something similar), then you can generate cashflow as a landlord without putting up any cash of your own on the purchase. Of course there are many risks associated with landlording and i could tell you horror stories... but we're not addressing that here. You can negotiate a sale with an owner who agrees to finance the entire purchase for you. I once purchased 3 properties at once this way from a seller who financed the entire sale, all closing costs, everything, this way. Of course they needed a lot of repair and such so I had to fund that another way, but at least the purchase itself cost me no money out of pocket. So these infomercials/courses are not inherently scams in the sense that what they are teaching is (usually... I'm sure there are exceptions) true. However they generally give you enough information to get into trouble, and not out. But that's what true learning is... it's getting into trouble and finding a way out that doesn't kill you. =) That's called experience, and you can't buy that for any price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b95e7286d3620036ce1d7a554eb8d328", "text": "Well, it really doesn't make sense to pay for either in cash. For these purchases, unless you're super wealthy, you won't be paying it in full. If you were to pay in full, then I don't see any practical point to withdraw that money in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46ef1c349a7e585f5f3bd1e59c73d059", "text": "Here's how I think about money. There are only 3 categories / contexts (buckets) that my earned money falls into. Savings is my emergency fund. I keep 6 months of total expenses (expenses are anything in the consumption bucket). You can be as detailed as you want with this area but I tend to leave a fudge factor. In other words, if I estimate that I spend approximately $3,000 a month in consumption dollars then I'll save $3,500 times 6 in the bank. This money needs to be liquid. Some people use a HELOC, other people use their ROTH contributions. In any case, you need to put this money some place you can get access to it in case you go from accumulation (income exceed expenses) to decumulation mode (expenses exceed income). This money is distinct from consumption which I will cover in paragraph three. Investments are stocks, bonds, income producing real estate, small businesses, etc. These dollars require a strategy. The strategy can include some form of asset allocation but more importantly a timeline. These are the dollars that are working for you. Each dollar placed here will multiply over time. Once you put a dollar here it shouldn't be taken out unless there is some sort of catastrophe that your savings can't handle or your timeline has been achieved. Notice that rental real estate is included so liquidating stocks to purchase rental real estate is NOT considered removing investment dollars. Just reallocating based on your asset allocation. This bucket includes 401k's, IRAs, all tax-sheltered accounts, non-sheltered brokerage accounts, and rental real estate. In general your primary residence is not included in this bucket. Some people include the equity of their primary residence in the investment column but it can complicate the equation and I prefer to leave it out. The consumption bucket is the most important bucket and the one you spend the most time with. It requires a budget. This includes your $5 magazine and your $200 bottle of wine. Anything in this bucket is gone. You can recover a portion of it by selling it on ebay for $3 (these are earned dollars) but the original $5 is still considered spent. The reason your thought process in this area is distinct from the other two, the decisions made in this area will have the biggest impact on your personal finances. Warren Buffett was famous for skimping on haircuts because they are worth thousands of dollars down the road if they are invested instead. Remember this is a zero-sum game so every $1 not consumed is placed in one of the other buckets. Once your savings bucket is full every dollar not consumed is sent to investments. Remember to include everything that does not fit in the other two buckets. Most people forget their car insurance, life insurance, tax bill at the end of the year, accountant bill, etc. In conclusion, there are three buckets. Savings, which serve as your emergency bucket. This money should not be touched unless you switch from accumulation to decumulation. Investments, which are your dollars that are working for you over time. They require a strategy and a timeline. Consumption, which are your monthly expenses. These dollars keep you alive and contribute to your enjoyment. This is a short explanation of my use of money. It can get as complicated and detailed as you want it to be but as long as you tag your dollars correctly you'll be okay IMHO. HTH.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05e13d28a008dfdf53244a99276f6c0", "text": "Since no one else mentioned it, there are sometimes amazing deals that require being the first person to take advantage of them. I'm not talking about black Friday sales, I'm talking about the woman who decided to sell the Porsche (she had bought for her cheating husband) for $1000. You might not run into those types of deals often, but having liquid investments will allow you to take advantage of them instead of kicking yourself. I just bought some real estate with some of my emergency fund that needed several months before I could properly finance it due to some legal issues with the deed that needed to go through court because there was a deceased person on the title. I will make far more on the deal when it's done than I ever could have made with that money invested in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "103149f9d033adf1cda71bb2ba4affe7", "text": "Don’t go crazy with your salary and try to live similar to your college lifestyle for a while. Max out tax deferred investments and any matching your company offers. Put the rest of your savings in passively managed index funds not a savings account at your bank. Buy furniture over a few months and find deals. Try to keep your total auto expense under 10% of gross monthly income and you’re housing expense under 20% of gross monthly income. After a few months you’ll figure out your other monthly expenses and how much you feel comfortable saving. You can also let your credit card company know you have this income and they may raise your CC limit. A higher limit means your utilization rate will be lower which will help your credit as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf9bc141f3041ebc6991cb6d84786f9", "text": "I'd invest in yourself. Start up a side business. Take a certification class that gets your foot in the door for something else (auctioneering, real estate sales, whatever). Bid on a storage auction and try to re-sell it. Learn Spanish (or whatever second language is best for your area). And so forth. Most of the suggestions thus far are either debt reduction or passive investment. You have good control on your debt, and most passive investments pay jack (though Lending Club might be a bit better than most). Build up another basket to put your eggs in and build equity and cash flow instead of interest and dividends. You're young. This is the time to learn how to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9f76816678c0a267f047910b324fe99", "text": "With an investment, you tend to buy it for a very specific purpose, namely to make you some money. Either via appreciation (ie, it hopefully increases value after you take all the fees and associated costs into account, you sell the investment, realise the gains) or via a steady cashflow that, after you subtracted your costs, leaves you with a profit. Your primary residence is a roof over your head and first and foremost has the function of providing shelter for yourself and your family. It might go up in value, which is somewhat nice, but that's not its main purpose and for as long as you live in the house, you cannot realise the increase in value as you probably don't want to sell it. Of course the remortgage crowd would suggest that you can increase the size of the mortgage (aka the 'home atm') but (a) we all know how that movie ended and (b) you'd have to factor in the additional interest in your P&L calculation. You can also buy real estate as a pure investment, ie with the only objective being that you plan to make money on this. Normally you'd buy a house or an apartment with a view of renting it out and try to increase your wealth both due to the asset's appreciation (hopefully) and the rent, which in this scenario should cover the mortgage, all expenses and still leave you with a bit of profit. All that said, I've never heard someone use the reasoning you describe as a reason not to buy a house and stay in an apartment - if you need a bigger place for your family and can afford to buy something bigger, that falls under the shelter provision and not under the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06e1b8afb9052c723e8242b969dd441f", "text": "Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth. Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea. It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed. This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a4f34e63f42deecfde00368d6d715fa", "text": "\"Paying in physical cash is almost never a good idea for large purchases (unless you like being audited and/or having lots of attention from law enforcement). All purchases over $10k in cash need to have special forms filled out for the IRS and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, so this is not a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory... if you do that on the regular, you ARE being investigated. When people say \"\"cash\"\" for normal purchases, they generally mean a wire transfer (e.g. buying a house \"\"cash\"\" = wire transfer between banks). In this case, purchasing a company \"\"cash\"\" is contrasted with purchasing with stock. So instead of getting $13.7B of AMZN, Amazon takes out a loan (or pulls their money from cash on on hand) and transfers it to the financial institution handling the sale. Everyone who owns WFM stock gets paid out in cash, as opposed to receiving some number of shares of AMZN.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e50b5bb1e442c035db4970ad52e0f7bb", "text": "Yes, but then either of you will need the other's permission to sell the car. I strongly recommend you get an agreement on that point, in writing, and possibly reviewed by a lawyer, before entering into this kind of relationship. (See past discussions of car titles and loan cosigners for some examples of how and why this can go wrong.) When doung business with friends, treating it as a serious business transaction is the best way to avoid ruining the friendship.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "887b6da259f747c3ebaa6117d49b4758", "text": "Not sure if it is the same in the States as it is here in the UK (or possibly even depends on the lender) but if you have any amount outstanding on the loan then you wouldn't own the vehicle, the loan company would. This often offers extra protection if something goes wrong with the vehicle - a loan company talking to the manufacturer to get it resolved carries more weight than an individual. The laon company will have an army of lawyers (should it get that far) and a lot more resources to deal with anything, they may also throw in a courtesy car etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "893f4647c49ce9b1a99d36fda912461e", "text": "You could have the buyer go to the bank with you so that he can get evidence that the loan will be paid in full and that the lien will be lifted. The bank won't sign over the title (and lift the lien) until the loan is paid back in full. DMV.org has a pretty good section about this. (Note: not affiliated with the actual DMV) Selling to a Private Party Though more effort will be required on your part, selling a car with a lien privately could net you a higher profit. Here are a few things you'll need to consider to make the process easier: Include the details of the lien in your listing. You'll list an advertisement for your car just as you would any other vehicle, with the addition of the lien information that buyers will need so as to avoid confusion. Sell in the location of the lienholder, if possible. If the bank or financial institution holding the lien is located in the area you're trying to sell, this will make the transaction much easier. Once you make an agreement with the buyer, you can go directly to the lender to pay off the existing lien. Ownership can then be transferred in person from the financial institution to the buyer. Consider an escrow service. If the financial institution isn't in your area, an escrow service can help to ensure a secure transaction. An escrow service will assume responsibility for receiving payments from the buyer and will hold the title until the purchase is complete. Advantages of an escrow service include: Payoff services, which will do most of the work with the financing institution for you. Title transfer services, which can help to ensure a safe and legitimate transaction and provide the necessary paperwork once the sale is complete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ef47bc6e77a08529092f461b85d993b", "text": "\"The lead story here is you owe $12,000 on a car worth $6000!! That is an appalling situation and worth a lot to get out of it. ($6000, or a great deal more if the car is out of warranty and you are at risk of a major repair too.) I'm sorry if it feels like the payments you've made so far are wasted; often the numbers do work out like this, and you did get use of the car for that time period. Now comes an \"\"adversary\"\", who is threatening to snatch the car away from you. I have to imagine they are emotionally motivated. How convenient :) Let them take it. But it's important to fully understand their motivations here. Because financially speaking, the smart play is to manage the situation so they take the car. Preferably unbeknownst that the car is upside down. Whatever their motivation is, give them enough of a fight; keep them wrapped up in emotions while your eye is on the numbers. Let them win the battle; you win the war: make sure the legal details put you in the clear of it. Ideally, do this with consent with the grandfather \"\"in response to his direct family's wishes\"\", but keep up the theater of being really mad about it. Don't tell anyone for 7 years, until the statute of limitations has passed and you can't be sued for it. Eventually they'll figure out they took a $6000 loss taking the car from you, and want to talk with you about that. Stay with blind rage at how they took my car. If they try to explain what \"\"upside down\"\" is, feign ignorance and get even madder, say they're lying and they won, why don't they let it go? If they ask for money, say they're swindling. \"\"You forced me, I didn't have a choice\"\". (which happens to be a good defense. They wanted it so bad; they shoulda done their homework. Since they were coercive it's not your job to disclose, nor your job to even know.) If they want you to take the car back, say \"\"can't, you forced me to buy another and I have to make payments on that one now.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eec08f53ddb437a4e142b74fbd3492f", "text": "Is your name on the title at all? You may have (slightly) more leverage in that case, but co-signing any loans is not a good idea, even for a friend or relative. As this article notes: Generally, co-signing refers to financing, not ownership. If the primary accountholder fails to make payments on the loan or the retail installment sales contract (a type of auto financing dealers sell), the co-signer is responsible for those payments, or their credit will suffer. Even if the co-signer makes the payments, they’re still not the owner if their name isn’t on the title. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) notes: If you co-sign a loan, you are legally obligated to repay the loan in full. Co-signing a loan does not mean serving as a character reference for someone else. When you co-sign, you promise to pay the loan yourself. It means that you risk having to repay any missed payments immediately. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower such as demanding that you repay the entire loan yourself, suing you, and garnishing your wages or bank accounts after a judgment. Your credit score(s) may be impacted by any late payments or defaults. Co-signing an auto loan does not mean you have any right to the vehicle, it just means that you have agreed to become obligated to repay the amount of the loan. So make sure you can afford to pay this debt if the borrower cannot. Per this article and this loan.com article, options to remove your name from co-signing include: If you're name isn't on the title, you'll have to convince your ex-boyfriend and the bank to have you removed as the co-signer, but from your brief description above, it doesn't seem that your ex is going to be cooperative. Unfortunately, as the co-signer and guarantor of the loan, you're legally responsible for making the payments if he doesn't. Not making the payments could ruin your credit as well. One final option to consider is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a drastic option, and you'll have to weigh whether the disruption to your credit and financial life will be worth it versus repaying the balance of that auto loan. Per this post: Another not so pretty option is bankruptcy. This is an extreme route, and in some instances may not even guarantee a name-removal from the loan. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer or other source of legal help to review your options on how to proceed with this issue.", "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": "c4bcf33a97cb8a616ed24cfdb17bee27", "text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans Chino CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans Chino CA 12403 Central Ave # 274, Chino, CA 91710 909-325-3099 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-chino-ca/", "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": "6b189dfcc0b4606dc340e6fc8447c3cc", "text": "\"She may be right. If she gets the usual thing of half the family assets gained during marriage, she's also entitled to half the car. Well, not quite. Imagine you had sold the car at the time of divorce. You would have gotten some cash for it (this is typically shown in the Blue Book). And then you would have had to pay off the loan. So the cash value at that time, minus the loan owed at that time, was the equity in the car at that time. That would be a family asset and she'd have been entitled to half of it. A lot of auto loans are a ripoff, so this might not be much money. Or could be zero. Or could even be negative - it's common to owe more on a car than it's worth, especially the first year after you buy it. In which case she owes you LOL. The judge already dealt with this, and he did it by saying \"\"you two get together and try to work it out\"\", and come back to me with a proposed settlement.\"\" If you are at loggerheads, you can go back to the judge, but he may not give an answer you like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4ab4a6c8c6f18d4ded356b3bcfc548b", "text": "You are not perfectly clear, but I will assume that your ex-girlfriend owns the car and that her name is the only one on the title. The fact that you paid off the loan and repaired the car is completely irrelevant. From a court's point of view you gifted the car to your girlfriend. If you are listed on the title, then your best move is to steal the car and hide it so she can't steal it back. Note that you are not actually stealing it if you are listed on the title since you own the car. (Try to steal it when it is parked in some public place. Avoid going onto her property.) Wait until she gets hungry, then offer her $500 if she agrees to remove her name from the title. By the way, after you steal the car, send a certified letter to her informing her that you have possession of the car. This is so that she has no grounds to report it stolen. Check with the police periodically to make sure she doesn't report it stolen anyway. If she reports it stolen AFTER you have notified her that you have possession, then it is a crime (making a false report).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82", "text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "ed3a04403eb605af7ed68d5a4c79621c", "text": "The buyer can get another cosigner or you can sell the car to pay off the loan. These are your only options if financing cannot be obtained independently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6375ca2adc112dc33b5be6b576328cda", "text": "It is a legal issue for two reasons. In the United States if both names were on the title both people would have had to sign the paperwork in order to transfer the title. If the car was collateral for the loan, then the bank would have had to be involved in the transaction. The portion of the check need to repay the loan would have had to have been made out to the bank. If the car was sold to a dealership, then paperwork must have been forged. If the car was sold to a person then it is possible that they were too naive to know what paperwork was required, but it is likely still fraud. You need legal advice to protect your money, and your credit score. They should also be able to tell you who needs to be contacted: DMV, the police, the dealership, the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8e6c38c95e169f5d01c19699cb2e6f0", "text": "Update: here is a message the seller just sent me. Does this make sense? I spoke with my bank again and they explained it a little better for me. I guess how it works is they will print out something for you that is called an affidavit in lieu of title that states they are no longer the lein holder and to release it to you. You then take that to the dol and they get it put in your name. He says that's how they do it all the time. When we get to the bank, the teller just verifies the check and I deposit it and they release the funds to pay off the account and that's when you would get the paperwork. You would be there for the whole process so nothing is sketchy. Sorry it's such a pain, I didn't understand how that worked. We've never sold a car with a loan on it before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff0eb373e33424d8d23565b07f33a629", "text": "Does the full time PHD student extend to 70-80 hours/week or more? If not, can you pick up an extra job to aid with living expenses? Also, whose name is the debt in? Is your wife paying to avoid the black mark on her credit record or her mother's? Basically what it looks like to me is that you guys currently have a car you cannot afford and that her mother doesn't seem to be able to afford either, at a ridiculous interest rate on top. Refinancing might be an option but at a payoff amount of 12k you're upside down even when it comes to the KBB retail value. I'm somewhat allergic to financing a deprecating asset (especially at a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that she's already paid them around $18k if you are indeed three years into the loan). What I would be tempted to do in your situation is to attempt to negotiate a lower payoff to see if they're willing to settle for less and give you clean title to the car - worst thing they can say is no, but you might be able to get the car for a little less than the $12k, then preferably use your emergency money to pay off the car and put it up for sale. Use some of the money to buy her a cheaper car for, say, $4k-$5k (or less if you're mechanically inclined) and put the rest back into your emergency fund. The problem I see with refinancing it would be that it looks like you're underwater from a balance vs retail value perspective so you might have a problem finding someone to refinance it with you throwing some of your emergency money at it in the first place.", "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": "a96d117587982e48e6551829af00c8bf", "text": "Of course you can. My assumption is you are/will be in UK. I am a student from outside the UK and I am about to start studying at a UK university/college/school. How do I choose which bank is best for me? You should be able to open a ‘basic bank account’ with a number of different banks. A ‘basic bank account’ provides easy access to banking facilities for adults in the UK. Additionally, some banks offer a bank account tailored specifically for your needs as an international student. There is a table on pages 6 & 7 of this leaflet that has a list of basic accounts and other accounts that may be suitable along with brief descriptions of some of their features. Most banks don’t ask you to pay in any money to open a basic account. You should look around to see which bank and account suit you best and then visit the local branch of the bank you have chosen. You may also be able to get other types of account, as detailed in the next section. Please speak to a bank Go through the source I have linked. It is a bit old, but has relevant information for you. SOURCE", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5ee0e5ee25552262506cdaf9a8f6403", "text": "\"You can wire the money to the university. If your friend is a registered student, then they will have an account at the school. Contact the school directly and ask for the \"\"bursar's office\"\" (assuming it is an English speaking school). The bursar will tell you how to wire the money so that it reaches the proper account. Normally, you will wire to a general university account at a bank and the memo on the wire will include the student's account number. Your friend can wire money to your account at your bank. Go to your bank and ask them for the procedure. By the way, there is a 90% chance your \"\"friend\"\" will not pay you back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "118b7cdb68dfddbd40d4ac3fb00c6b6b", "text": "Yes, you can transfer money to your account, any bank will do it. The conversion charges will be there i.e. the diff between USD and the rate at which the bank sells it, usually Rs. 2/-, appx. In addition, transaction charge (not very high). As for taking from friends & repaying in India, check UAE tax treatement for taking money from friends (is it considered as your income & are you liable for taxes). As for giving back, get some documentation done as a loan, otherwise your friends may be considered to be taking gift/consideration/income from you and taxed. Most straight forward way is to transfer the money from your mother's account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b45e548d7249ae24266bede29b37465", "text": "I will not pay any taxes in the Us, since I am not working for an US company What you will or will not pay is up to you of course, but you definitely should pay taxes in the US, as you're working in the US. Since you mentioned being from Japan, I'll also suggest checking whether you're allowed to perform any work in the US under the conditions of your visa. If you're a F1/J1 student - you'll be breaking the immigration law and may be deported. You might be liable for taxes in Germany, as well, and also in Japan. I'll have to edit this to allow people who downvoted the answer without knowing the legal requirements to change their vote. F1 student cannot be a contractor without a valid EAD. Period. There's no doubt about it and legal requirements are pretty clear. Anyone who claims that you wouldn't be breaking the terms of your visa is wrong. Note, I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax professional, for definite advice talk to a professional.", "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": "fe5cc026007dcec1e20591574cf671a4", "text": "Nothing happens. A bank is a business; your relationship with the bank doesn't change because your visa or immigration status changes. Money held in the account is still held in the account. Interest paid on the account is still taxable. And so on. If the account is inactive long enough, abandoned account rules may apply, but that still has nothing to do with your status.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81b702bd57c5ca1a9422cc1c74918b24", "text": "\"As a general proposition, no, you do not need to report money transfers into the US. If a transaction exceeds $10,000 then the bank must report it anyway. Note that \"\"structuring\"\" your transactions to avoid a $10,000 deposit is illegal, so be careful if you are moving lots of money. As a general rule, no, transferring your own individual money from a foreign account to a US account does not incur taxes. Only lawyers are authorized to practice law in the US. They should generally be bar licensed in the state of practice. Certified public accountants can assist you with tax preparation and return positions, though tax lawyers may be necessary for some situations or for formal tax opinions. Be sure to use an experienced advisor to file your tax returns and information reporting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c92eab5ac3d5d3b95ad478ef01af3752", "text": "Your sister-in-law should know that anybody, US citizen or not, can open a US bank account. She should do that and then pay her 20k fee to the company. I'm a Canadian citizen and I have a US bank account and I don't even live nor work in the United States. I only use it when I travel for leisure and order online. This looks like a scam, but if you know well your sister-in-law, it may not be.", "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": "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": "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": "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": "79c22338193a3f1a2c9fa3b0730fc78e", "text": "As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.", "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": "dc7fda7d3c5fb49456dd9db0fe564a1b", "text": "I was in a similar (but not quite as bad situation) a couple years ago, and I had a stroke of luck that helped me, but your friend might be able to force a similar situation. My parents refused to take out the huge parent loan (understandably so), but my dad made enough money that I wasn't eligible for much aid. My stroke of luck came when they got divorced; I could refile my FAFSA with only one parent (using my mom with very little income), my aid shot through the roof and nearly covered my undergrad (this happened in California, I don't know if this works in other states). My advice for your friend would be to take the 6 units/part time job option, but do what she can to earn enough to pay her own rent/food/other bills. I think the requirement for filing as an independent is that you supply >50% of your own income. It won't kick in right away, but for next school year this would end up getting her a lot more money from the state/federal governments. For me it was enough to cover my school, food, rent, gas, car payment, and still have a little left over. (I don't know if this is still possible, and I know it doesn't work for graduate school, or if it applies to every state. It might be an option worth pursuing though)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3db0d0ba092eee579c691904d37ebdca", "text": "\"It's your business to pay what you owe but it's not your business to determine what you owe. The \"\"Fair Debt Collections Practices act\"\" FDCPA proscribes certain steps creditors must go through to contact you. You appear to not have received any active contact or demand, but you can still cite the FDCPA to make it their problem. Write to the creditor's address (I assume its the hospital, the OP isn't clear), use USPS Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested, asking them to validate that you owe this debt by mail in 5 days, as is your right under the FDCPA. If they get back to you and you agree (or its reasonably plausible) you do owe it, pay it especially if it's on the order of $100. At least you will know it is settled at the source. Cross reference to your insurance claims to be sure its not double billed or a miscredited copay, but you may see many legit separate charges from one ER visit (hospital, doctor, anesthesiologist, etc) and it would not be the first time a medical billing system crapped the bed. If you don't hear anything after a few weeks, use the credit report protest process (or write to them, cc: the Federal Trade Commission) contesting the validity of this report. The creditor did not respond to your FDCPA request for validation (copy of the Return Receipt); and you otherwise believe you are current with the hospital. Per the Fair Credit Reporting act, they must investigate. Fight bureaucratic fire with fire: conduct all business by mail, and make liberal use of certified mail return receipts. Its a $6 way to telegraph you know that they have specific federal law timeliness requirements; and you have a federal timestamp signed by someone in their organization.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "141eafddbda39e17d4fc29f187dd72dc", "text": "\"The word \"\"good\"\" was used in contrast to \"\"bad\"\" but these words are misused here. There are three kinds of debt: Debt for spending. Never go into debt to buy consumables, go out for a good time, for vacations, or other purchases with no lasting financial value. Debt for depreciating assets, such as cars and sometimes things like furniture. There are those who put this in the same category as the first, but I know many people who can budget a car payment and pay it off during the life of the car. In a sense, they are renting their car and paying interest while doing so. Debt for appreciating, money-making assets. Mortgage and student loans are both often put into the good category. The house is the one purchase that, in theory, provides an immediate return. You know what it saves you on the rent. You know what it costs you, after tax. If someone pays 20% of their income toward their fixed rate mortgage, and they'd otherwise be paying 25% to rent, and long term the house will keep up with inflation, it's not bad in the sense that they need to aggressively get rid of it. Student loans are riskier in that the return is not at all guaranteed. I think that one has to be careful not to graduate with such a loan burden that they start their life under a black cloud. Paying 10% of your income for 10 years is pretty crazy, but some are in that position. Finally, some people consider all debt as bad debt, live beneath their means to be debt free as soon as they can, and avoid borrowing money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecc38e79051f713a9050061432e7c22c", "text": "\"Here is the discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6gsvgh/the_supreme_court_has_decided_that_the_fair_debt/ Yes, but the discussion was that this allows for many loopholes where an outside firm can be hired for collections, which can then go back to using tactics like the old dark days. ...also fyi - I assume in your comment above you meant \"\"owned\"\" not \"\"owed\"\"...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b4b0552f208a8adb74cb11b233821f4", "text": "\"In addition to dpassage's excellent advice on dealing with your debt in the most efficient manner, you may also want to consider Consumer Credit Counseling Services (CCCS). These are non-profit agencies (free or low-cost) that can work with you and your creditors to come up with payment plans and sometimes negotiate lower interest rates to help you get out from under the debt. You should definitely avoid for-profit \"\"debt consolidation\"\" companies, but the National Foundation for Credit Counseling can refer you to non-profit services in your area.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c317be61f5f73f1464afd844bac1b6cb", "text": "This is possible. In fact in the cases of debt settlement the collection companies typically issue a 1099 for the difference on what is owed and what is settled, making that taxable income. So the IRS sees it as income (in the US). However, this kind of dishonesty is not conducive to building long term wealth or wealth of significant means. As others have said this is fraud, but provided that one is truthful on the loan application, it would be impossible to prove. How can one prove that a person has no intention of paying a loan back? Doing this once or twice may ruin your ability to receive a loan for legitimate purposes for life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f56ea82cfd41bbaf3e175e705bb35301", "text": "\"what are the incentives to that person to actually pay off his/her debt as opposed to just walking away from it and relying on the cash (s)he has for the future spending needs as opposed to borrowing Well, you can't just \"\"walk away\"\" from debt - you still owe it. Eventually your creditors would end up suing you in court for the money, plus interest owed. I suppose you could try to continually duck the authorities, but you'd still owe the money legally.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419ad6232fd4f86fa4f9ae3da5226128", "text": "\"In some cases, it might be rational to pay low-interest debt first, because the consequences of defaulting on that debt are worse. Consider this simplified example. Suppose you have two debts: a low-interest mortgage, secured by your house, and a high-interest unsecured credit card debt, both of which are within a few years of being paid off. There is a chance that sometime between now and then, something will happen to disrupt your income (e.g. medical problems), and it won't be possible to make the payments on either loan. Defaulting on the credit card loan will result in a lower credit score and calls from collection agencies. Defaulting on the mortgage will result in the foreclosure or forced sale of your house, at best forcing you to move, and at worst leaving you homeless, at a time when you are also facing other (e.g. medical) problems. So you might rationally judge that losing your house is much worse than bad credit. Therefore, you might rationally conclude that it would be better to direct extra income toward paying down the mortgage, to increase the chances that, if and when an income disruption might occur, the mortgage would already be paid off. In other words, you shorten the window of time where income disruption results in foreclosure. You might decide that this increased security is worth the extra interest you will pay, compared to the strategy where you pay the high-interest loan first. This is a fairly special situation, but you asked \"\"Why might it be a good idea to do this?\"\", and I am just giving an example where it could rationally be considered a good idea. (Of course, in a real-life version of this example, there might be other options available, such as refinancing the mortgage. If you like, you could imagine a more extreme example where the lower-interest debt is owed to Joey Knuckles the loanshark, who will come and break your kneecaps if you miss a payment.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf5a078744cc54a81030ae60317e94b", "text": "\"Would it make sense to take a loan from a relative... Other people have pointed this out, but honestly, I'd be very reluctant to answer \"\"yes\"\" to this no matter how you completed that sentence. There's always an intangible risk to mixing money and relationships. There's a lot that can go wrong during the duration of the loan, and if it does, the consequences could be a lot greater than just a bad credit score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc3fac15e2f8646c244551e0b846d17b", "text": "\"Your main reason to not pay off your debts right now seems to be: Enjoy life while \"\"I am young\"\" and not miss opportunities to have fun? I think the good news is that having fun usually does not require spending a lot of money. I would propose that most of the times when we considered something fun it had more to do with who we were with than what we were actually doing. Of course there are many fun things that are expensive, but there are even more fun things that require little money at all. My suggestion to you would be to prioritize your debt in a responsible way such that you have a plan to pay it off quickly, but if something comes along that does require extra money, don't be afraid to make an adjustment. For example, you can try to put 2000€ towards your debt every month, but if some exciting adventure comes along that you really want to do and it costs 1000€ one month, you shouldn't feel like you absolutely must turn it down. That month you could put 1000€ towards debt and the other 1000€ towards the adventure. I wouldn't recommend taking an adventure every month, but I wouldn't always turn one down either. Besides, I think most of the time you can have lots of fun for free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca6de9ea271a66d6bf24f1c313723077", "text": "If you tell the collector that the claim isn't valid, they're obliged to go back to the creditor to verify it. Sometimes that gets a real person, instead of their automatic billing system, to look at the claim, and if you're right, they'll drop it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aeb0bb4b3bbbee25c09f14be0a80f01", "text": "Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow. Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care. They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth. Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "162ef645bed4bd15997a86978699716f", "text": "I would sit down with the creditors and negotiate smallest amount you can get before agreeing with whatever you have to pay. Think that, for them, it's much more convenient to get way less than $36K than to see you in collections. Needless to say, don't tell them you have to money to cancel off :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5544a1375dd2e68b18c6db81dfdc5c5f", "text": "If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f39baa2450b442da29dd911a7f77dc", "text": "I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a63d03786cd064808fb119a8a7f559e", "text": "\"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "fd5be2826839269830e2c39aba971b96", "text": "I know that there are a lot service on the internet helping to form an LLC online with a fee around $49. Is it neccessarry to pay them to have an LLC or I can do that myself? No, you can do it yourself. The $49 is for your convenience, but there's nothing they can do that you wouldn't be able to do on your own. What I need to know and what I need to do before forming an LLC? You need to know that LLC is a legal structure that is designed to provide legal protections. As such, it is prudent to talk to a legal adviser, i.e.: a Virginia-licensed attorney. Is it possible if I hire some employees who living in India? Is the salary for my employees a expense? Do I need to claim this expense? This, I guess, is entirely unrelated to your questions about LLC. Yes, it is possible. The salary you pay your employees is your expense. You need to claim it, otherwise you'd be inflating your earnings which in certain circumstances may constitute fraud. What I need to do to protect my company? For physical protection, you'd probably hire a security guard. If you're talking about legal protections, then again - talk to a lawyer. What can I do to reduce taxes? Vote for a politician that promises to reduce taxes. Most of them never deliver though. Otherwise you can do what everyone else is doing - tax planning. That is - plan ahead your expenses, time your invoices and utilize tax deferral programs etc. Talk to your tax adviser, who should be a EA or a CPA licensed in Virginia. What I need to know after forming an LLC? You'll need to learn what are the filing requirements in your State (annual reports, tax reports, business taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc). Most are the same for same proprietors and LLCs, so you probably will not be adding to much extra red-tape. Your attorney and tax adviser will help you with this, but you can also research yourself on the Virginia department of corporations/State department (whichever deals with LLCs).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e65985c3ab463e6ad723656aa8e16f82", "text": "\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fe5cfb09968ac4444f604fac9e9b16c9", "text": "According to the W9 instructions you are considered a U.S. person if: According to the following section, it looks like a C corporation may be easier then an LLC: All of this information can be found here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "692ae1c3e6eb2eca7e42bcebfcb1293a", "text": "Mods decided to leave it here, so I'll summarize some of my answers on this question given @OnStartups. You can find them here, here and here. Your options are : You and your business are one and the same. You report your income and expenses for taxes on a Schedule C (for each sole proprietorship a separate schedule), and taxed at your personal rates. There's no liability protection or legal separation between you and your business, and you don't need to have any bureaucratic overhead of managing an entity. You can use your own bank account and have checks written to you directly. You can register for DBA if you want a store-front name to be different from your own name. Depending on State, can cost a lot or close to nothing. Provides certain liability protection (depending on State, single-member and multi-member LLC's may have different liability protections). You can chose to be taxed as either a sole-proprietor (partnership, for multi-member) or as a corporation. You have to separate your activities, have a separate bank account, and some minimal bureaucracy is required to maintain the entity. Benefits include the limited liability, relatively easy to add partners to the business or sell it as a whole, and provides for separation of your personal and business finances. Drawbacks - bureaucracy, additional fees and taxes (especially in CA), and separation of assets. Corporation is an entirely separate entity from yourself, files its own tax returns, has separate bank accounts and is run by the board of directors (which in some cases may require more than 1 person to be on the board, check your state laws on that). As an officer of the corporation you'll have to pay salary to yourself. S-Corp has the benefit of pass-through taxation, C-Corp doesn't and has double taxation. Benefits - liability protection, can sell shares to investors, legally distinct entity. Disadvantages - have to deal with payroll, additional accounting, significant bureaucracy and additional layer of taxes for C-Corp (double taxation). Selling corporate assets is always a taxable event (although in your case it is probably not of an importance). You have to talk to a lawyer in your state about the options re the liability protection and how to form the entities. The formation process is usually simple and straight forward, but the LLC/Partnership operating agreements and Corporation charters/bylaws must be drafted by a lawyer if you're not going to be the sole owner (even if you are - better get a lawyer draft something for you, its just easier to fix and change things when you're the sole owner). You have to talk to a CPA/EA in your state about the taxes and how the choice of entity affects them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "282c1acc3e14164ae6f35038c392d6f4", "text": "You don't need to notify the IRS of new members, the IRS doesn't care (at this stage). What you do need, if you have a EIN for a single-member LLC, is to request a new EIN since your LLC is now a partnership (a different entity, from IRS perspective). From now on, you'll need to file form 1065 with the IRS in case of business related income, on which you will declare the membership distribution interests on Schedules K-1 for each member.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3952f02414674a677415876312af53fe", "text": "First, yes, your LLC has to file annual taxes to the US government. All US companies do, regardless of where their owners live. Second, you will also probably be liable to personally file a return in the US and unless the US has a tax treaty with India (which I don't believe it does) you may end up paying taxes on your same income to both countries. Finally, opening a US bank account as a foreign citizen can be very tricky. You need to talk to a US accountant who is familiar with Indian & US laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcb839dcb28b6c271c3788c7ed718b41", "text": "Doing business in united state is not so much easy many time business owner wants to do their business by choosing Delaware llc Online incorporation so that they can able to get many legel benefits and also able to get the state predictable business friendly laws. As forming the Delaware llc is very much easy and it also requires minimal information for forming the llc in the Delaware.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ff4ccbc0346de375ade7ff30060923d", "text": "Get a lawyer. I've incorporated in Alberta without one which was fine because I'm the only employee and it's pretty simple. If you're hiring someone and especially since you have a business partner, spend the money and get a lawyer. They can help with proper contracts and stuff too. Also, consider an accountant as well. Lots of papers to keep organized and taxes aren't always simple. Best of luck!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddc4567aaa01aa91837cb7c8690619ea", "text": "\"If you intend to do business \"\"outside the country\"\", why establish an LLC \"\"here\"\" at all? You should establish a business in your home country if you desire business organization for sequestering liabilities or something. With or without a business organization, you will presumably be taxed for domestic income \"\"there\"\", wherever that is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1a08ddaabab1b83ced76dfa1bbe930", "text": "Get another LLC. Not that hard and well worth it. I have one business endeavor but have 3 different LLC's to handle the three different aspects of it. That way, should something go wrong with one of the three (and it has in the past), I can kill it without hurting the entire operation. Then start another LLC to take over the aspect of the operation that was killed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "363e48c2324326a292452607abe56965", "text": "Short Answer: Go to the bank and ask them about your options for opening a business account. Talk to an attorney about the paperwork and company structure and taxes. Long Answer: You and your buddies jointly own an unincorporated business. This is called a partnership. Yes, there is paperwork involved in doing it properly and the fact that you guys are minors might complicate that paperwork a little bit. In terms of what type of account to open: A business account! Running a business through a personal account (joint or otherwise) is a sure way to get that account shut down. Your bank will want to know the structure of the business, and will require documentation to support that. For a partnership, they will probably want a copy of the partnership agreement. For an LLC, they'll probably want a copy of the filing with Ohio Secretary of State as well as the operating agreement etc. That said, pop into a local bank and ask a business banker directly what you should do. They deal with new businesses all the time, and would probably be best qualified to help you figure out the bank account aspect of it. Regarding business structure... this really impacts a lot more than just the type of bank account to open and how you file your taxes. It is something you guys should really discuss with an attorney. What happens if down the road one of you quits? What happens if you want to bring in a new partner later? What if there is a disagreement about something? These are all things that the attorney can help you address ahead of time - which is a heck of a lot easier (and cheaper) than trying to figure it out later. You're brining in enough that you should certainly be able to buy a couple hours of a lawyer's time. Getting the formation stuff right could save all of you a lot of money and heartache later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "839decb72a043b2574f664f4caef55df", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c63354cffacbd0dd596f593b412164d3", "text": "\"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The \"\"limited liability\"\" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC \"\"or else\"\", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say \"\"yes, you do\"\" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation. http://www.incorp.com has agents in every state, but there are registered agents everywhere, you can even call the Secretary of State in each state for a list of registered agents. Get an employer ID number yourself after the business entity is formed, it takes less than 5 minutes. All of this is also contingent on how your LLC or partnership distributes funds. If your LLC is not acting like a pass through entity to you and your partner,but instead holding its own profits like a corporation, then again none of this matters. You need to form it within the state you live and do foreign registrations in states where it has any physical presence, as it has becomes its own tax person in those states. This is relevant because you said you were trying to do something with a friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8742712e52420c7ee377c2f1bcd0486", "text": "This is what all the guides and business advice places I've checked out seem to say. Limited company down the line possibly depending on whether I employ people or outsource that work to others or whatever (given the nature of the business).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0659e8e19457737aa39ca2904088ade5", "text": "Thank you for the pointers! Did you find it necessary to hire an attorney to set up your llc? Have you found any real down-sides with the llc option? It seems to be great in most circumstances from what I'm reading/hearing, there must be some negatives.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbbd4034ac47489c8320a88da2592", "text": "The main things to ask about are going to revolve around the best way to structure your business. Know what your plans are for partnership. Know whether or not you'll need a lot of up front capital, and if you'll be subjected to an abnormal amount of risk in the course of day to day operations. If you'll be working with one or more partners, ask for help with an operating agreement. You'll find out whether or not you need an accountant throughout these discussions. Edit: Going through those points will enable your lawyer to help you file under the appropriate structure. Ask for help with anything you're unsure about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9757d4c102e4eb3fc99b6d4ebfdc2d6", "text": "There are a lot of things that can be specified in the LLC agreement / charter, such as unequal distribution profits, sales restrictions, classes of ownership, etc. You should read your LLC paperwork. That said, you are generally allowed to sell ownership in an LLC in a private transaction. If you advertise the share of the LLC for sale, it's probably a violation of SEC rules. So Craig's List is a bad idea. Word of mouth or a broker is the way to go. I am not a lawyer or accountant -- you should double check this information; it might be wrong.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ab2c8385fbe611ad736f66331f17cbaa", "text": "Every bank and credit union in the US has a Deposit Agreement and Disclosures document, Bank of America is no different. Our general policy is to make funds from your cash and check deposits available to you no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. However, in some cases we place a hold on funds that you deposit by check. A hold results in a delay in the availability of these funds. that sounds great but ... For determining the availability of your deposits, every day is a business day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If you make a deposit on a business day that we are open at one of our financial centers before 2:00 p.m. local time, or at one of our ATMs before 5:00 p.m. local time in the state where we maintain your account, we consider that day to be the day of your deposit. However, if you make a deposit after such times, or on a day when we are not open or that is not a business day, we consider that the deposit was made on the next business day we are open. Some locations have different cutoff times. so if you deposit a check on Friday afternoon, the funds are generally available on Tuesday. but not always... In some cases, we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you by the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the second business day after the day of your deposit. The first $200 of your deposits, however, may be available no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available by the first business day after the day of your deposit, we generally notify you at the time you make your deposit. We also tell you when the funds will be available. Ok what happens when the funds are available... In many cases, we make funds from your deposited checks available to you sooner than we are able to collect the checks. This means that, from time to time, a deposited check may be returned unpaid after we made the funds available to you. Please keep in mind that even though we make funds from a deposited check available to you and you withdraw the funds, you are still responsible for problems with the deposit. If a check you deposited is returned to us unpaid for any reason, you will have to repay us and we may charge your account for the amount of the check, even if doing so overdraws your account. Fidelity has a similar document: Each check deposited is promptly credited to your account. However, the money may not be available until up to six business days later, and we may decline to honor any debit that is applied against the money before the deposited check has cleared. If a deposited check does not clear, the deposit will be removed from your account, and you are responsible for returning any interest you received on it. I would think that the longer holding period for Fidelity is due to the fact that they want to wait long enough to make sure that the number of times they have to undo investments due to the funds not clearing is nearly zero.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ffa2250acc63d88f31a6961a58f380b9", "text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65f91e745690772d877a58ac6472cded", "text": "You set it based on liquidity management. Cash drag is one of the reasons actively managed funds underperform. The longer your settlement date, the less cash you have to hold because you can take three days to liquidate positions to redeem. So it's a convenience vs performance question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccb53ec70fd1c7e3b4addbd3a77698da", "text": "\"There are two reasons you would get a higher yield for savings accounts: either because it is not guaranteed by a national deposit insurance fund (CDIC I presume in Canada), or you have to hold it for a longer term. Money Market Accounts are insured in the U.S. and are also very liquid since you can debit from it any time. Because of this, they offer much lower rates of interest than comparable products. If you look at the savings products such as the 1.50% momentum savings account offered by ScotiaBank, you actually have to hold a $5000 balance and not make any debit from it for 90 days in order to get the extra 0.75% that would get you to 1.50%. Essentially this is roughly equivalent to offering you a 1.50% GIC with a 0.75% withdrawal penalty fee, but simply presented in more \"\"positive\"\" terms. As for the Implicity Financial Financial 1.75% offering, it looks like it is not insured by the CDIC.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ace3a7e909e6efb41e12fb6a93b3f6d", "text": "In the United States, savings accounts generally have higher interest rates than checking or money market accounts. Part of this is the government restriction on the number of automated transactions per month that can be done on a savings account: this is supposed to allow banks to lengthen the time frame of the cash part of their investments for savings. This limit is why direct deposit of one's paycheck is almost always into a checking or money market account... and why many people have savings accounts, especially with Internet banks, because they pay significantly higher interest rates than brick and mortar banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b92883778774ac2ae3a05a50028a5f5a", "text": "The slips from your bank for your HSA account are for an account already established and thus the bank is willing to accept your deposits even if they arrive at the bank after the April 15 deadline, as long as the postmark is April 15 or earlier. The account exists in the bank, they know who you are, and that the payment is received after April 15 is just due to the normal (or even abnormal) delays in postal delivery. For the new account that you tried to establish (with appropriate notarization and timely postmark etc), the credit union could not have received the paperwork as of the close of business on April 15 (except in the very unlikely circumstance that a local letter deposited in the mailbox in the morning gets delivered the same day by USPS: don't extrapolate from stories of how mail was delivered in London in Victorian times). Ergo, you did not have an HSA account in the credit union as of April 15, and they are perfectly correct in refusing to open an account with a April 15 date and put money into it for the previous tax year. To answer the question asked: Are they allowed to ignore the postmark date? Yes, not only are they allowed to ignore the postmark date, the IRS insists that they ignore the postmark date. The credit union prefers to report only the truth: as of April 15, you had not established an HSA account as of April 15; to say otherwise would be making a false statement to the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b727ae7b43228b83efcdc86a2ddfa0c7", "text": "Looking at your dates, I think I see a pattern. It appears that your statement closing date is always 17 business days before the last business day of the month. For example, if you start at May 31 and start counting backwards, skipping Saturdays, Sundays, and May 30 (Memorial Day), you'll see that May 5 is 17 business days before May 31. I cannot explain why Bank of America would do this. If you ask them, let us know what they say. If it bothers you, find another bank. I do most of my banking (checking, savings, etc.) with a local credit union. Their statements end on the last day of the month, every month without fail. (Very nice, in my opinion.) I have two credit cards with nationally known banks, and although those statements end in the middle of the month, they are consistently on the same date every month. (One of them is on the 13th; the other date I can't recall right now.) You are right, a computer does the work, and your statement date should be able to fall on a weekend without trouble. Even when these were assembled by hand, the statement date could still be on a weekend, and they just wouldn't write it up until the following Monday. You should be able to find another bank or credit union that does this.", "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": "4f912f5d1f133a5faf79a635365990fb", "text": "\"Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer \"\"margin\"\", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a \"\"margin account\"\", you currently have a \"\"cash account\"\". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a \"\"solution\"\" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05f2384f318fceeaea2560c1da8ccd3d", "text": "\"If the answer were \"\"no,\"\" you still found the 'black swan' type exception that proves the answer to be \"\"yes,\"\" right? My experience is this - again just my experience, my bank - When by balance goes below $10, I have the account trigger an email. I wrote a check I forgot to register and subtract, so the email was sent and the account balance in fact showed negative. I transferred to cover the check and the next day, there was a history that didn't go negative, the evening deposit was credited prior to check clearing. I set up my bills on line. I set a transfer in advance for the same dollar amount as a bill that was due, e.g. $1000 transfer for a $1000 bill. I woke up to an email, and the account showed the bill was paid prior to the transfer. So one line showed going -$900, and the next line +$100 after transfer. Even though it's the same online process. Again, the next day the history re-ordered to look like I was never negative. But even on a day I know I'm having payments issued, I can never just ignore that email. The first time this happened, I asked the bank, and they said if the negative went until the next day, I'd get an overdraft/short balance notice. This is a situation to ask your bank how they handle this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b609126cbf14eb629535679ac0a875d7", "text": "Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b213dd622dfb92ca43339dad0d9a256", "text": "\"Your bank is maintaining different states for transactions, and changing the state depending on real-world events and the passage of time. withdraw €100 from my bank account on 30 September […] my bank does not process the transaction until 2 October. The bank probably have that transaction marked as “pending” on 30 September, and “cleared” on 2 October. transfer €100 from Bank A to Bank B, Bank A's statement dates the transaction on 20 September, but Bank B dates it as coming in on 22 September. Similarly, bank A will have the transaction marked as “pending” initially. Bank B won't have a corresponding transaction at all, until later; they'll have it “pending” too, until they confirm the transfer. Then (probably at different times from each other) the banks will each mark the corresponding transactions “cleared”. The bookkeeping software that I use doesn't seem to allow for this \"\"transfer time\"\" between accounts. When I enter a transfer from one account to another, they both have to have the same date. You may want to learn about different bases of accounting. The simpler option is “cash-based” accounting. The simplification comes from assuming transactions take no time to transfer from one account to another, and are instantly available after that. Your book-keeping software probably books using this simpler basis for your personal finances. The more complex “accrual-based” accounting tracks each individual transaction through multiple states – “pending”, “transfer”, “cleared”, etc. – with state changes at different times – time of trade, time of settlement, etc. – to more accurately reflect the real world agreements between parties, and different availability of the money to each party. So if your book-keeping program uses “cash basis”, you'll need to pick which inaccuracy you want: book the transfer when you did it, or book the transfer when the money is available at the other end.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "254b29225b915be822ea4a883a43a442", "text": "\"There are, in fact, two balances kept for your account by most banks that have to comply with common convenience banking laws. The first is your actual balance; it is simply the sum total of all deposits and withdrawals that have cleared the account; that is, both your bank and the bank from which the deposit came or to which the payment will go have exchanged necessary proof of authorization from the payor, and have confirmed with each other that the money has actually been debited from the account of the payor, transferred between the banks and credited to the account of the payee. The second balance is the \"\"available balance\"\". This is the actual balance, plus any amount that the bank is \"\"floating\"\" you while a deposit clears, minus any amount that the bank has received notice of that you may have just authorized, but for which either full proof of authorization or the definite amount (or both) have not been confirmed. This is what's happening here. Your bank received notice that you intended to pay the train company $X. They put an \"\"authorization hold\"\" on that $X, deducting it from your available balance but not your actual balance. The bank then, for whatever reason, declined to process the actual transaction (insufficient funds, suspicion of theft/fraud), but kept the hold in place in case the transaction was re-attempted. Holds for debit purchases usually expire between 1 and 5 days after being placed if the hold is not subsequently \"\"settled\"\" by the merchant providing definite proof of amount and authorization before that time. The expiration time mainly depends on the policy of the bank holding your account. Holds can remain in place as long as thirty days for certain accounts or types of payment, again depending on bank policy. In certain circumstances, the bank can remove a hold on request. But it is the bank, and not the merchant, that you must contact to remove a hold or even inquire about one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7f53388750c3c3aa69d751131546f00", "text": "From my reading of the wikipedia page (CRT), this only happens if you deposit or withdraw currency, not checks. The idea behind this is that checks, ACH, etc. leave paper trails that can be tracked. Cash doesn't, so it gets this extra level of scrutiny. If yu get a cashiers check or a money order to pay a bill, I don't think a CRT is created. If you withdraw $15,000 to buy a car in cash (1 stack of $100 bills), then a CRT would be generated. It still isn't a problem, as long as you can show a bill of sale showing where the money went (or came from, if you are the seller). The IRS has a FAQ about this. It says (taken from several spots at that page): Cash is money. It is currency and coins of the United States and any other country. A cashier’s check, bank draft, traveler’s check, or money order with a face amount of more than $10,000 is not treated as cash and a business does not have to file Form 8300 when it receives them. These items are not defined as cash because, if they were bought with currency, the bank or other financial institution that issued them must file a Currency Transaction Report. The exception to this is if you are buying something with a resale value of more than $10k with a check, money order, etc of less than $10k.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109ca3b612a0ed712240453010ca9c4f", "text": "This happened to me in the mid 90's. I wanted to withdraw enough cash from my account to buy a new car and they nearly panicked. I took a bank draft instead. I discovered afterward that they can require up to a week's notice for any withdrawl.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f7248e5f1cf5574fcfe75e702e39347a", "text": "\"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de995a46c0bcc6bbe0657fa820a0816b", "text": "With this level of income, you might consider a Solo 401(k). It would allow you a much higher level of contributions and is more appropriate for your savings than the limited IRA deposits. It also offers a considerable number of options not available for IRAs. A loan for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9608373ac4641fd3bf118810516a650", "text": "\"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "16ed6dab292e7202b621d0760d331256", "text": "529 College Savings Plans exist, which allow for tax-free savings for educational expenses, but I think you expect to go back to school too quickly for them to be worth the hassle. (They're more designed for saving for college for your kids.) Other than an IRA, you don't have many options for tax-advantaged accounts. In addition, since you plan to return to school, you should keep money around for that. Don't put that money in anything too volatile or hard to access. Since you don't plan on doing anything with the 80k in CDs right now, you can get away with higher risk with that money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "644c22f68a53d92c00380b254bfeb7ee", "text": "I think others have made the key points. Let me just add: As others have pointed out, the traditional IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is lower than it is when you are building the account. The Roth IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is higher. For most people, your income in retirement will be lower than your income in most of your working years. On top of that, a significant percentage of your income will come from Social Security, which is generally not taxed, and so the tax rate you pay on the remaining income will be lower still. If you're just starting out, if you're in your 20s, it's likely that your income will go up significantly in the next couple of decades and so you might be making more in retirement that you are now, and so the Roth is probably your better bet. But if you're in your 40s or 50s you are probably making your peak income, you will have much less in retirement, and the traditional IRA is likely better. If your income is well above average and you are saving enough to have a retirement income well above average, then social security may be a very small part of your retirement and my comments on that may not be relevant to you. It's true that tax rates could change in the future. But will they go up or down? It's also possible that the laws about retirement accounts will change. If you think you have some insight into what will happen in the future you may want to take that into account when making plans. But politics is very hard to predict.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2870c9e1f1eec7050ab5afae2c2df29", "text": "Other people have pointed this out, but there are a few considerations in whether you should do a Roth or Traditional IRA, such as: One of the major arguments for using a Traditional IRA is that you can (at least in theory) afford to contribute more money initially than you'd be able to afford if you were using a Roth IRA. While this is, in theory, true, I'm not at all convinced that using a Traditional IRA will actually cause people to contribute more to it. Realistically, how many people will actually contribute, say, $500 more to their IRA because they knew that their contribution for this year will save them $500? To know if this is the case, consider the last time that you actually invested some of your tax refund in your retirement account; I haven't seen any actual statistics on this, but I'm guessing that very few people do this. Please see other people's answers for details on the mathematics behind that. The second argument for contributing to a Traditional IRA is if you expect your future income tax rate to be lower than your current tax rate for some reason - e.g. due to a change in government policy (e.g. replacing income taxes with Value Added Tax or something like that), the fact that you're doing the contribution relatively close to when you're planning on withdrawing it, etc. Please see this question for more discussion about this. Keep in mind that, while a Traditional IRA saves you tax money this year, a Roth IRA saves you money when you withdraw it, so it's not really a question of paying taxes on $5000 now or $5000 later, it's a question of paying taxes on $5000 now vs., for example, $50,000 later (or however much the money's grown by the time you withdraw it). Maybe the Traditional IRA is still worth it, though, if there are changes to tax policy or you end up with a lot more money in your Traditional IRA due to being able to contribute more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7c6c045d2c03f178cd96160cd32d98", "text": "For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ded7a0f62acf3829c0a21b9aa318525f", "text": "\"Since your 401k/IRA are maxed out and you don't need a 529 for kids, the next step is a plain ol' \"\"Taxable account.\"\" The easiest and most hassle-free would be automatic contributions into a Mutual Fund. Building on poolie's answer, I think mutual funds are much more automatic/hassle-free than ETFs, so in your case (and with your savings rate), just invest in the Investor (or Admiral) shares of VEU and VTI. Other hassle-free options include I-Bonds ($5k/year), and 5-year CDs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8139827df5aa181c2aa883974232b178", "text": "Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now. This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA. (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.) Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets. If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19f9a0f8c9f6abd42a257e6869e6b3b8", "text": "\"This may be more of a comment than an answer, but it's too long for a comment. Perhaps the Stackexchange Gods will forgive my impudence. That said: Even with the tax penalties, it can be to your advantage to put money into a \"\"retirement\"\" account and withdraw it before retirement. The trick is: Is the amount of the tax penalty more than the benefit of untaxed compound growth? For example, just to make up some numbers: Suppose you have $1000 of gross income to invest. You are considering whether to invest in an ordinary, non-tax favored account, or a classic IRA. Either way you will get 10% returns. Your tax rate, both when you put the money in and when you take it out, is 15%. There is a 10% tax penalty for early withdrawal. With an ordinary account you will pay 15% tax off the top, so you are only investing $850. Then each year 15% of your returns are paid in taxes, so your net return is 8.5%. But when you withdraw the money there are no additional taxes. With an IRA you do not pay any taxes up front, so you can invest the entire $1000. You collect 10% each year with no taxes. When you withdraw, you pay 15% plus the 10% penalty equals 25%. So after 5 years, the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^5 = $1504. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^5 x 0.75 = $1208. The tax penalty hurts. You are better to use the ordinary account. But if you could leave your money in for 25 years, then the ordinary account would yield $850 x 1.085^25 = $7687. The IRA would yield $1000 x 1.1^25 x 0.75 = $8126. The IRA, even with the tax penalty, is better. Of course my numbers are just made up. What your tax bracket is, what returns you get, and how long you think you might leave the money in the investment, all vary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ec965a4eec4d21850e5055c1062b74", "text": "\"This is an excellent topic as it impacts so many in so many different ways. Here are some thoughts on how the accounts are used which is almost as important as the as calculating the income or tax. The Roth is the best bang for the buck, once you have taken full advantage of employer matched 401K. Yes, you pay taxes upfront. All income earned isn't taxed (under current tax rules). This money can be passed on to family and can continue forever. Contributions can be funded past age 70.5. Once account is active for over 5 years, contributions can be withdrawn and used (ie: house down payment, college, medical bills), without any penalties. All income earned must be left in the account to avoid penalties. For younger workers, without an employer match this is idea given the income tax savings over the longer term and they are most likely in the lowest tax bracket. The 401k is great for retirement, which is made better if employer matches contributions. This is like getting paid for retirement saving. These funds are \"\"locked\"\" up until age 59.5, with exceptions. All contributed funds and all earnings are \"\"untaxed\"\" until withdrawn. The idea here is that at the time contributions are added, you are at a higher tax rate then when you expect to withdrawn funds. Trade Accounts, investments, as stated before are the used of taxed dollars. The biggest advantage of these are the liquidity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c391f7aeb49230c8b33d05ddb683ed91", "text": "Is investing in a Roth retirement account only better if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement? If you are pushing up against the contribution limits, a Roth account may allow you to save more money in tax-advantaged accounts. In your example, you are putting $100 pre-tax in a traditional account vs $85 post-tax in a Roth account. But if there are limits, and the limits are the same for traditional or Roth accounts (as they currently are for US 401(k) accounts), you can effectively put more into a Roth account, where the limit applies to the post-tax amount, than a traditional account, where the limit applies to the pre-tax amount. If so, is there any case in which a traditional retirement account is better than a Roth account? It is smart to have some money in a traditional account, because the first amount of money you earn or withdraw each year (up to the standard deduction) is taxed at 0%, which is probably less than your current rate. And the next bit of money is taxed at only 10%, which may also be less than your current marginal rate. Of course, things may change by the time you retire, but it is probably safe to assume that we will still have some kind of progressive (income bracketed) tax structure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65145beacef7b0c43b871f77760ba90b", "text": "While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d87a2b16c8b9a3e20c78e655d806c20e", "text": "Both types of plans offer a tax benefit. A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free. Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d109090ba05e855c9985aee6d8e11fed", "text": "\"I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"\"buckets.\"\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"\"target retirement\"\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"\"equity premium\"\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4eb1f3883678b9cb8397aa325b41e2", "text": "\"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - \"\"annuities are sold, not bought\"\") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d4f1523f9fd61903f121d578b425fb", "text": "I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "352358b9f75579a59051d758b0f79fab", "text": "$4,000 is a relatively small amount in the grand scheme of retirement. I think you should decide in general whether a Traditional or Roth makes more sense for you (with the intent that you will continue contributing to it in the future), and then treat the $4,000 like you would any other contribution.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2fe00a78dd66de649ffcfa0dfa140ba1", "text": "\"Part of your first link has this statement that I suspect you are missing: However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Note that executive is in that list. As for the additional note: To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Generally which means, \"\"in most cases; usually.\"\" is not a universal qualifier and thus exceptions can exist. I'd imagine that restricted stock could be a way around some of the rules as there would be a monetary value there in the case of the stock for companies of a particular size.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0cd1fa6506e3c07c3f9878d3fc99f34", "text": "\"Even under the executive exemption, see Exemption for Executive Employees Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 13(a)(1) as defined by Regulations, 29 CFR Part 541, it seems that a minimum compensation is required. To qualify for the executive employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met: The employee must be compensated on a salary basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week... etc. There is one other possibility under FLSA Section 13(a)(1), as a \"\"bona fide exempt executive\"\". Exemption of Business Owners Under a special rule for business owners, an employee who owns at least a bona fide 20-percent equity interest in the enterprise in which employed, regardless of the type of business organization (e.g., corporation, partnership, or other), and who is actively engaged in its management, is considered a bona fide exempt executive.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6d0d30fbd25325bcf5393073ef1bf6b", "text": "\"Taxable fringe benefits are included in taxable wages for the purpose of FLSA. So when those executives get to use company cars or company jets that value is \"\"wage\"\" even if it isn't salary.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9af4a08018b84cf30918a7759f1d1f51", "text": "I'll agree to that. They are definitely manipulations that end up with unintended consequences. Even the idea of tying stock to the CEO's salary was intended to make the CEO think long term, but what happened is that they figured out how to game the system. Which is unfortunate, especially since the employees end up taking the brunt of that. Need a stock boost? Lay off some people, buy back some stock or announce something.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49116813bdaca2a97e43c13f41359d5c", "text": "The CEO of a public company can, and often does, buy (and sell) the stock of his company. In fact, frequently the stock of the company is part of the compensation for the CEO. What makes this legal and fair is that the CEO files with the SEC an announcement before he buys (or sells) the stock. These announcements allow us 'in the dark' people enough warning ahead of time. See, for example, the trades of UTX stock by their public officers. As for trading on information about other companies, if I am not mistaken... that is why Martha Stewart wound up in prison. So, yeah, it does happen. I hope it is caught more often than not. On a related note, have you seen the movie 'Wall Street' with Charlie Sheen and Michael Douglas?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ad5b8a7665f87f4c1a7685590461e7f", "text": "This is tax fraud, plain and simple. I recently wrote an article The Step Transaction Doctrine, in which I explain that a series of events may each be legal, but aggregate to one transaction and the individual steps are ignored. In this case, it goes beyond that, by accepting $5/mo you are already outside the tax code. As littleadv noted, you can't work for a legitimate business for free and not expect to have some kind of issue. The $14K/yr gift isn't a bona fide gift, but ties to that work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "926f7fc3c121c94c19503886feaa9538", "text": "He said base salary. Most executive compensation is bonuses, awards, and long term incentives that vastly outweigh the actual cash they receive. Just check out a large company's proxy statement. Walmart's CEO received less than $3 million in cash last year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229b1729af55e45a236e8630da828e92", "text": "I have no idea where this lie started and why it is perpetuated. A CEOs only fiduciary duty is to maintain shareholder value. Not increase it maintain it. If the stock price remains at $100 for 20 years congrats it’s been maintained and you’ve fulfilled your fiduciary duty", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d566ddfa53fc8dedee7b7add94e91ae5", "text": "I'm guessing you're talking about options given to employees. The company can issue stock options at whatever strike price it wants. The difference between the strike price and the actual market value is considered income to the employee. You can get the options at $0 strike just as well (although companies generally just give RSUs instead in this case).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d737b1ec367bd04433444f7c48e9571f", "text": "It is totally legal but it just has to be reported like income. Granted the IRS will probably not catch it. I work for a large company I get little gift cards all the time and they add the dollar value as income for taxes on my paycheck. It is a little annoying because I think it is kind of shit that a dollar value of a gift card is treated as the same value as real money, but they are amazon gift cards so better than cash to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1649617dc85a5c9b69fe9840f4e87f17", "text": "\"The crazy thing about this is that $30 million in annual salary and compensation really isn't the end of the story for rich guys. I worked for a REIT a few years back and the guy that founded that REIT made a few million in salary a year. I thought the number seemed a bit low for his lifestyle. He had many properties in the US for his own personal use (around 6-8 BIG homes). He also had a garage that was insane. He had over 25 very expensive cars. My co-workers would say \"\"Nick is airing out his garage\"\" when he drove one to work every day for a month without driving the same vehicle twice in one month. It turns out he owned 30 million shares of stock that paid him $1.00 per share per year. So while his annual compensation was \"\"only\"\" a few million per year, his dividend income was many, many, times that. Think about that next time you see a CEO's annual income and you think that it really isn't as much as you expect.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d38594a9dbf07bb6c67cc028f8152b96", "text": "\"If we take only the title of the question \"\"can the CEO short the stock\"\": It was probably different before Enron, but nowadays a CEO can only make planned trades, that is trades that are registered a very long time before, and that cannot be avoided once registered. So the CEO can say \"\"I sell 100,000 shares in exactly six months time\"\". Then in six months time, the CEO can and must sell the shares. Anything else will get him into trouble with the SEC quite automatically. I don't know if shorting a stock or buying options can be done that way at all. So it's possible only in the sense of \"\"it's possible, but you'll be in deep trouble\"\". Selling shares or exercising share options may indicate that the company's business is in trouble. If the sale makes that impression and everyone else starts selling because the CEO sold his shares, then the CEO may be in trouble with the board of directors. Such a sale would be totally legal (if announced long time ahead), but just a bad move if it makes the company look bad. Shorting sales is much worse in that respect. If the CEO wants to buy a new car, he may have to sell some shares (there are people paid almost only in share options), no matter where the share price is going. But shorting shares means that you most definitely think the share price is going to drop. You're betting your money on it. That would tend to get a CEO fired, even if it was legal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9916e6bff9f39a8ec5d5757c264d083", "text": "This is the correct answer and is a concrete way to start to work on be legitimate problem of the income gap between the 1% and the rest of the population. Ive tried, but never been able to justify the compensation earned by the fortune 100 CEOs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a485d7ee72ef0fae0ccd52cda6c1a37d", "text": "There is a funny story about that. If you were visiting Apple and Jobs was taking you to lunch in the cafe - he would insist on paying. Employees, get to checkout and have their badge scanned and the cost of the food is deducted from their paycheck. So why did Steve always insist on treating for lunch? He was enjoying all he (and guests) could eat for $1 a year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d9863faefe4a32970bf766757a3854b", "text": "\"tl;dr: Prosecutors probably thing they can't meet the \"\"reasonable doubt\"\" standard, and the deck is heavily stacked against lawsuits. The whole running the company into the ground part is legal. It's stupid, but no different than any bad boss that pits employees against each other. Just on a much grander scale. The real estate thing is extremely shady. However, when you're the boss of a company, It's not considered theft to do business with another company you own. The truth is Sears is drowning in debt. The CEO offered an easy out. They sell the property, and only pay reduced rent. It also means closing stores is easier, and Sears is on the decline. So, on its own, it's shady, but not the worst way of getting quick cash. The fact that the CEO is responsible for that decline is what pushes things into potential legal trouble. It's essentially a complicated form of theft. One where if Sears goes bankrupt too early (before 2020 or so), his real estate business can't handle it and burns. However, these sorts of executive theft are almost never prosecuted. The best chance would be a shareholder lawsuit, but it would have to be against the entire board for supporting him. Then you run into the issue that, while the board is \"\"elected\"\", the laws governing it allow for tricks that make the Russian election look sterling in comparison.\\* Basically, if a CEO is backed up by the board, and not doing something blatantly illegal, they can probably get away with it. Board elections tend to be rigged to the point that having a member that cares about the company, and all the minor shareholders is laughable. \\* In addition to how the candidates are chosen, votes are cast, etc..., etc... many companies have several types of shares. Some of which have no voting power, and some of which count for many times the vote of a normal share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4babe885cc0b9c925ba104bf0a8636c8", "text": "\"Nope, its not legal. Easy to explain: If you know something that isn't public known (\"\"inside\"\") it's called insider trading. Hard to prove (impossible), but still illegal. To clarify: If the CEO says it AND its known in public its not illegal. In any case the CEO could face consequences (at least from his company).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949fc768dba52d0febfd534e468933d7", "text": "Indirect exchange (the common units of which are called 'money') is not debt (though the commodity of indirect exchange may be debt). Physical gold is not debt (it is mined, not conjured into existence from someone's promise of future goods). Gold-backed paper currency is gold debt. Indirect exchange is an extension of barter, not a replacement. The advantage of indirect exchange over direct exchange is that it solves the coincident of wants problem. (Alice may want a telescope, but Charlie doesn't want 500 apples for it. Alice finds out that Charlie would trade the telescope for 1 unit of gold. Alice then finds Bob who is willing to trade 1 unit of gold for 500 apples. Alice then trades with Bob and then trades with Charlie to get what she wants.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbf6046e290aff0c298d409f0eaf7fa9", "text": "As you have income from Business / Profession, you would need to use form ITR4S", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "486420b297d6d92642fa8c90ebcd3bc2", "text": "\"Can you tell me please, is it really hard to make international wire transfer for payment my job and can i resolve this problem without using third party services? This is mostly a barrier, the form at times is quite complicated. For Russia, one has to enter \"\"Purpose of remittance\"\" ... at times select intermediate banks, give BIC and other details. This can become unnerving to people who are not used to it. The other option you can try is set-up a credit card gateway and get funds via cards.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2190cf18cdde2e8a1cdaa6bdf6594688", "text": "For most major banks, wire transfers are simple, if expensive, to arrange. For example, I can initiate an international wire transfer from my online banking portal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5706a76e215eb414bc676ff79db9c98f", "text": "I would look for an alternative wire transfer service that will charge less. I use ofx, but note that they don't do transfers to roubles. The rate adjusts by amount being transferred and there is a $15 fee for under $5000. Upside is it is bank-to-bank. 2 days tops.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac8abccf51bd6ddeaff31ce498e4be7b", "text": "\"You are right in insisting upon a proper B2B contract in any business relationship. You wish to reduce your risk and be compensated fairly. In addition to the cost and complexity of international wire transfers, the US companies may also be considering the fact that as an international contractor in a relatively hard-to-reach jurisdiction, payments to you place the company at higher risk than payments to a domestic contractor. By insisting upon PayPal or similar transmitters, they are reducing their internal complexity and reducing their financial exposure to unfulfilled/disputed contract terms. Therefore, wire payments are \"\"hard\"\" in an internal business sense, as well as in a remittance transfer reporting sense. The internal business procedure will likely be the hardest to overcome--changing risk management is harder than filling out forms.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c09e0ca4cba8ddc88883306ee7d79eac", "text": "\"This sounds like a FATCA issue. I will attempt to explain, but please confirm with your own research, as I am not a FATCA expert. If a foreign institution has made a policy decision not to accept US customers because of the Foreign Financial Institution (FFI) obligations under FATCA, then that will of course exclude you even if you are resident outside the US. The US government asserts the principle of universal tax jurisdiction over its citizens. The institution may have a publicly available FATCA policy statement or otherwise be covered in a new story, so you can confirm this is what has happened. Failing that, I would follow up and ask for clarification. You may be able to find an institution that accepts US citizens as investors. This requires some research, maybe some legwork. Renunciation of your citizenship is the most certain way to circumvent this issue, if you are prepared to take such a drastic step. Such a step would require thought and planning. Note that there would be an expatriation tax (\"\"exit tax\"\") that deems a disposition of all your assets (mark to market for all your assets) under IRC § 877. A less direct but far less extreme measure would be to use an intermediary, either one that has access or a foreign entity (i.e. non-US entity) that can gain access. A Non-Financial Foreign Entity (NFFE) is itself subject to withholding rules of FATCA, so it must withhold payments to you and any other US persons. But the investing institutions will not become FFIs by paying an NFFE; the obligation rests on the FFI. PWC Australia has a nice little writeup that explains some of the key terms and concepts of FATCA. Of course, the simplest solution is probably to use US institutions, where possible. Non-foreign entities do not have foreign obligations under FATCA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d404e48a37707fb85892c3a278a7bd5", "text": "I can only imagine the regulatory difficulty you're going through, and for that I empathize. First, bankers everywhere mostly do not know if a bank policy is due to regulation or internal rules. Other banks may be more flexible, but only the most reputable should be used. Re Paypal, they first deposit 1 USD and then withdraw it, but things may be different in Cyprus. Also, Paypal now has debit cards, so if Paypal is permitted to issue cards in Russia then it could presumably be used in Cyprus. Again, local regulation notwithstanding. Paypal now has phone support at the very back of their site, so I suggest a call to them. In countries that permit, Western Union can be used to wire money into an account from cash. The Bitcoin route should be used as a last resort. You could wake up tomorrow losting 25% easy. The regulations are a distant second compared to this problem. With all of the above methods, there will be varying delays from days to weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b56254525ee1a4d3bd61ecf5a539da", "text": "Before answering specific question, you are liable to pay tax as per your bracket on the income generated. I work with my partner and currently we transfer all earning on my personal bank account. Can this create any issue for me? If you are paying your partner from your account, you would need to maintain proper paperwork to show the portion of money transferred is not income to you. Alternatively create a join Current Account. Move funds there and then move it to your respective accounts. Which sort off account should be talk and by whose name? Can be any account [Savings/Current]. If you are doing more withdrawls open Current else open Savings. It does not matter on whos name the account is. Paperwork to show income matters from tax point of view. What should we take care while transfering money from freelance site to bank? Nothing specific Is there any other alternative to bank? There is paypal etc. However ultimately it flows into a Bank Account. What are other things to be kept in mind? Keep proper record of actual income of each of you, along with expenses. There are certain expenses you can claim from income, for example laptop, internet, mobile phone etc. Consult a CA he will be able to guide and it does not cost much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "457d622371d738723f400eaa2f67c280", "text": "frostbank.com is the closest thing I've found, so accepting this (my own) answer :) EDIT: editing from my comment earlier: frostbank.com has free incoming international wires, so that's a partial solution. I confirmed this works by depositing $1 (no min deposit requirement) and wiring $100 from a non-US bank. Worked great, no fees, and ACH'd it to my main back, no problems/fees. No outgoing international wires, alas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd6817e4cdc5230ba683aa08909bea15", "text": "I would certainly hope to make the transfer by wire - the prospect of popping cross the border with several million dollars in the trunk seems... ill fated. I suppose I'm asking what sort of taxes, duties, fees, limits, &c. would apply Taxes - None. It is your money, and you can transfer it as you wish. You pay taxes on the income, not on the fact of having money. Reporting - yes, there's going to be reporting. You'll report the origin of the money, and whether all the applicable taxes have been paid. This is for the government to avoid money laundering. But you're going to pay all the taxes, so for transfer - you'll just need to report (and maybe, for such an amount, actually show the tax returns to the bank). Fees - shop around. Fees differ, like any other product/service costs on the marketplace.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2570c173435745bdfc94803f83bc1151", "text": "Take a look at Transferwise. I find them good for currency conversions and paying people in India from a US bank account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd3098f5ce3f088f602a2d1842ad0caa", "text": "Opening Bank Account in US without physically being present is difficult. I'm having number of clients in USA to pay for my work, but I’m really confused to get money from my clients to my saving bank account. You can get money via PayPal or if they are repeat customers, ask them to send via remittance services like Money2India or Remit2India etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8af78310fdf6b53a1da087176b4ca5c", "text": "\"My recommendation is to shop around for a bank that handles wire transfers in a more sensible manner. Many wire transfers are set up so that you do not need to go physically into a branch. The wire transfer system I use has me initiate the transfer online, then call a dedicated number with a pin to authorise the transaction (24/7/365). I'm on the other side of the world from where the money \"\"is\"\" initially - no branch visit required.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b198461ba3b9f14c0cfd3e01b893a69", "text": "I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2870b87c3099cd3f536f33c2ba009d71", "text": "Yes, a business account at Chase bank offers free incoming wire transfer fees when you keep a minimum balance of over 100k. It's the only one I have found.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c9b27a19b0086ba941085e3b3ad0c19", "text": "\"A couple of thoughts and experiences (Germany/Italy): First of all, I recommend talking to the Belgian bank (and possibly to a Dutch bank of your choice). I have similar conditions for my German bank accounts. But even though they talk about it as salary account (\"\"Gehaltskonto\"\") all they really ask for is a monthly inflow of more than xxxx € - which can be satisfied with an automatic direct transfer (I have some money automatically circulating for this reason which \"\"earns\"\" about 4% p.a. by saving fees). In that case it may be a feasible way to have a Belgian and a Dutch bank account and set up some money circulation. Experiences working in Italy (some years ago, SEPA payments were kind of new and the debits weren't implemented then): My guess with your service providers is that they are allowed to offer you contracts that are bound to rather arbitrary payment conditions. After all, you probably can also get a prepaid phone or a contract with a bill that you can then pay by wire transfer - however, AFAIK they are allowed to offer discounts/ask fees for different payment methods. Just like there is no law that forces the store around your corner to accept credit cards or even large EUR denominations as long as they tell you so beforehand. AFAIK, there is EU regulation saying your bank isn't allowed to charge you more for wire transger to foreign country within the SEPA zone than a national wire transfer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d494f736c2fe7c90d149b3ec3bbbcc0f", "text": "There are several ways to minimize the international wire transfer fees: Transfer less frequently and larger amounts. The fees are usually flat, so transferring larger amounts lowers the fee percentage. 3% is a lot. In big banks, receiving is usually ~$15. If you transfer $1000 at a time, its 1.5%, if you transfer $10000 - it's much less, accordingly. If you have the time - have them send you checks (in US dollars) instead of wire transferring. It will be on hold for some time (up to a couple of weeks maybe), but will be totally free for you. I know that many banks have either free send and/or receive. I know that ETrade provides this service for free. My credit union provides if for free based on the relationship level, I have a mortgage with them now, so I don't pay any fees at all, including for wire transfer. Consider other options, like Western Union. Those may cost more for the sender (not necessarily though), but will be free for the receiver. You can get the money in cash, or checks, which you can just deposit on your regular bank account. For smaller amounts, it should be much cheaper than wire transfer, for example - sending $500 to India costs $10, while wire transfer is $30.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d9579caffe876adaaec0604f08c7549", "text": "Currency exchange is rather the norm than the exception in international wire transfers, so the fact that the amount needs to be exchanged should have no impact at all. The processing time depends on the number of participating banks and their speeds. Typically, between Europe and the US, one or two business days are the norm. Sending from Other countries might involve more steps (banks) which each takes a bit of time. However, anything beyond 5 business days is not normal. Consider if there are external delays - how did you initiate the sending? Was it in person with an agent of the bank, who might have put it on a stack, and they type it in only a day later (or worse)? Or was it online, so it is in the system right away? On the receiver side, how did you/your friend check? Could there be a delay by waiting for an account statement? Finally, and that is the most common reason, were all the numbers, names, and codes absolutely correct? Even a small mismatch in name spelling might trigger the receiving bank to not allocate the money into the account. Either way, if you contact the sender bank, you will be able to make them follow up on it. They must be able to trace where they money went, and where it currently is. If it is stuck, they will be able to get it ‘unstuck’.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56736602f21db5d09956941769bd03aa", "text": "\"I think the issue here is the rules say that \"\"relevant current events in finance\"\" are acceptable when (I think) that wording is too loose. \"\"Current events in finance\"\" is just very, very general, and anything related to central banking, monetary or fiscal policy, global austerity, analysis of index movements, sovereign defaults (and speculation thereof) qualifies a \"\"current events in finance\"\" - so technically, the rules aren't being broken. I think that having the language tightened a bit would help set the subreddit tone a little more accurately.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ac0b20c8304874761e678f1471937e40", "text": "I actually had to go to the bank today and so I decided to ask. The answer I was given is that a check is a legal document (a promise to pay). In order to get your money from the bank, you need to sign the check over to them. By endorsing the check you are attesting to the fact that you have transferred said document to them and they can draw on that account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec5412057d995fa26c9d1cff9cdb278d", "text": "\"The best reason for endorsing a check is in case it is lost. If the back is blank, a crooked finder could simply write \"\"pay to the order of \"\" on it and deposit it in his own account. You do not need a signature for the endorsement. The safest way to endorse a check is to write \"\"FOR DEPOSIT ONLY\"\" followed by an account number, in which case the signature is not needed. most businesses make up rubber stamps with this and stamp it the minute they receive a check. That way it has no value to anyone else. Depositing checks is increasingly going the way of the dodo. Many businesses today use check truncation - the business scans the check in, sends the digital image to the bank, and stores the check. I was surprised that Chase already has an applet for iPhones that you can use to deposit a check by taking a picture of it!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14dfd4204061a8a6f575f0f1353fff93", "text": "In my experience, you don't need to endorse a check with a signature to deposit it into your account. You do if you are exchanging the check for cash. Businesses usually have a stamp with their account number on them. Once stamped, those checks are only able to be deposited into that account. Individuals can do the same. I have had issues depositing insurance and government checks in the past that had both my and my wife's name on them. Both of us had to endorse the check to be able to deposit them. I think this was some kind of fraud prevention scheme, so that later one of us couldn't claim they didn't know anything about the check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bb54206a09e63cd0bbad0fe7cd0839", "text": "Paper trail of who did the deposit. Less significant for a personal account, but a bigger deal for accounts that are used by multiple people (e.g. a corporate checking account).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb4b664d7d653d25d5cef4db8c97622c", "text": "So the bank can (theoretically) compare that signature to the ID you provide, showing that the names and signatures match and that you are the person to whom the check was written.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a8fa3ea0118924eac2c26224b0fb5d", "text": "\"I believe the banks are protecting themselves when they \"\"require\"\" your endorsement. Years ago. they used to ask for your endorsement, and not require it. If you endorse the check, it legally authorizes them to debit your account, if the check is later returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). It mostly protects the bank, and not the customer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ca75fc446c7d0e5c9fb0348bb534e76", "text": "When the check is deposited, the bank verifies the signature in the check matches your signature in file.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "166d9d8c192fb1848d9c77fa7c96305e", "text": "\"There are benefits associated with a cash only business (the link states a few). However checks made out to \"\"cash\"\" don't reap those benefits listed. For anyone on SE to say your barber hides revenue from the IRS would just be speculation. With that said there are a great number of disadvantages for a cash only business. And from my experience, a business that goes out of their way to take cash only can be a little suspicious. Luckily you are not committing any crimes or fraud by paying her cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "606ca68af034a54c9ecd0d54095f38e3", "text": "Look, listen, I'm talking about **fraudsters**, people intentionally manufacturing fake payroll checks, not the companies themselves doing it. You're missing the point! Making a check that looks legit is not hard, especially if the check itself is legit and the information on it is bogus. There is a lot of exposure when you hand out a check to someone, corporate or otherwise. You need to carefully reconcile them against what the amount was supposed to be. If you ever lose any checks you have to get those numbers cancelled immediately. It's an enormous hassle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd37e41c50ea2a8d652fddf4c8deb8b2", "text": "\"Let me just add that while you don't need to write the date received on the back of the check, you could. Why? Let's say someone was late in paying you and you wanted to document the fact that they were late. I've had late-paying customers send me a check dated on the due date but really they just pre-dated the check and sent it 60 days past-due. So let's say I want to establish and document the pattern in case it becomes a future legal issue. When you deposit or cash a check, an image of the front and back is made and the person or company who issued the check will have those images stored as part of their transaction history. (It used to be that the original, physical, cancelled check was returned to the payer, but that was another era.) So write the date received on the back next to the endorsement, endorse the check, and take a photo of the front and back (along with the postmark on the envelope) to document that they are a late payer. This way, if it ever becomes a \"\"he said she said\"\" issue you can easily show they have a history of paying late. If the payer looks at their check images they'll see your received date note next to the endorsement. Granted, this is a lot of trouble for a unique situation. In 20+ years of running a business I've actually had the foresight to do this a handful of times with habitual offenders, and in (only) one case did it come in handy later on. But boy was I glad to have those photos when I needed them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61b85cead5d73582e622371bb6e9a673", "text": "It's safe. You give people those numbers every time you write a check. If a check is forged, and doesn't have your signature on it, the bank has to return the money to you; they get it back from the other bank, who takes whatever action it deems necessary against the forger. They've been doing this for a few hundred years, remember.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7f899827d3aae4754d6c612163051a6", "text": "Typically your paychecks are direct deposited into your bank account and you receive a paycheck stub telling you how much of your money went where (taxes, insurance, 401k, etc.). Most people use debit or credit cards for purchases. I personally only use checks to transfer money to another person (family, friend, etc.) than a business. And even then, there's PayPal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "50d8baa527dda7e3d14ef76cae41eb8f", "text": "As long as someone is willing to take it, you can write it! I personally wrote a check for a new car. The dealership didn't bat an eye.", "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": "8d2cf8541b931e8a26eafd7f3a524b83", "text": "This might be blasphemy in the context of an audience that may be most focused on the gift itself, but you should be donating in a manner that helps advance the landscape, as well as your particular favourite charity. Almost 90% of businesses are in the process of trying to move away from issuing and receiving checks, and several countries in the world have already stopped using them. Checks are inefficient, costly and in a resource constrained environment like that facing most charities, create an opportunity cost that is even higher than the manual processing cost that flows directly. As donors, we need to think about scale in a manner that many individual charities don't. Send your donation via ACH!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db9727bc51b56367e0c52dcca1121c14", "text": "\"When banks would return the actual physical cheque, at least you had some printing / writing from the other bank on it, as some type of not-easily-Photoshopped proof. Now many (most?) banks don't return the actual cheques anyway, just an image of it - sometimes a low quality shrunken B&W photocopy-like image too. You'd have to check with a lawyer or court in your area, but I suspect any photocopy or image, as well as a written or carbon-copy duplicate, would not be good enough proof for a law court, since they could all be easily re-written or Photoshopped. So I don't think there's a real upside anyway. Only an official bank statement saying that the name/people written actually cashed the cheque might be \"\"good evidence\"\" (I'm having doubts that the bank's own low quality \"\"image\"\" would even qualify, unless it's verified as coming directly from the bank somehow). I'd agree with Nate (+1) that a big downside could be identity theft, either online or alongside phone loss/theft.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a94776ff15107b4078eabd2f71906a41", "text": "\"Welcome to the 21st century, the New Order. Forget all that legal mumbo jumbo you may have read back in law school in the 1960s about commercial code. Its all gone now. Now we have Check 21 and the Patriot Act !!! Basically what this means is that because some Arab fanatics burned down the World Trade Center, the US government and its allied civilian banking company henchmen now have total control and dictatorship over \"\"your\"\" money, which is no longer really money, but more like a \"\"credit\"\" to your account with THEM which they can do with what they want. Here are some of the many consequences of the two aforementioned acts: (1) You can no longer sue a bank for mishandling your money (2) All your banking transaction information is the joint property of the bank, its \"\"affiliates\"\" and the US Treasury (3) You can no longer conduct private monetary transactions with other people using a bank as your agent; you can only request that a bank execute an unsecured transaction on your behalf and the bank has total control over that transaction and the terms on which occurs; you have no say over these terms and you cannot sue a bank over any financial tort on you for any reason. (4) All banks are required to spy on you, report any \"\"suspicious\"\" actions on your part, develop and run special software to detect these \"\"suspicious actions\"\", and send their employees to government-run educational courses where they are taught to spy on customers, how to report suspicious customers and how to seize money and safe deposit boxes from customers when the government orders them to do so. (5) All banks are required to positively identify everyone who has a bank account or safe deposit box and report all their accounts to the government. (6) No transactions can be done anonymously. All parties to every banking transaction must be identified and recorded. So, from the above it should be clear to (if you are a lawyer) why no endorsement is present. That is because your check is not a negotiable instrument anymore, it is merely a request to the bank to transfer funds to the Treasury. The Treasury does not need to \"\"endorse\"\" anything. In fact, legally speaking, the Treasury could simply order your bank to empty your account into theirs, and they actually do this all the time to people they are \"\"investigating\"\" for supposed crimes. You don't need to endorse checks you receive either because, as I said above, the check is no longer a negotiable instrument. Banks still have people do it, but it is just a pro forma habit from the old days. Since you can't sue the bank, the endorsement is pretty meaningless because it cannot be challenged in court anyway. You could probably just write \"\"X\"\" there and they would deposit it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a8bc7193252f2ccfec889fe8110dcb", "text": "No, most check deposits are processed that way. Banks transmit the pictures of the checks between themselves, and allow business customers to deposit scans for quite some time now. I see no reason for you to be concerned of a check being in a dusty drawer, it's been deposited, cannot be deposited again. If you're concerned of forgery - well, nothing new there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce0a9f7ecf842854a8dec19929fdc32a", "text": "\"It is your name, or the fictitious name under which you operate. For example, if your freelance front end is called \"\"Zolani the 13th, LLC\"\", then that's the name you want to appear on the check, and not \"\"Mr. John Zolani Doe\"\" that is written in your birth certificate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b", "text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd0d06afe8c24b08155be3de6a58234", "text": "\"In my experience (in the US), the main draw of check-cashing businesses (like \"\"CheckN2Cash\"\" is that they will hold your check for a certain period of time. This is also known as a \"\"payday loan\"\". Rather than bringing them a check someone else has written you, you write them a check yourself, postdated, and they pay you the amount on the check less their fees, and agree not to cash the check until a future date. So if you don't have the money right now but you need it before your next payday, you visit a check-cashing business and get the money, and it'll be withdrawn from your account after your next paycheck.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7f58c8fdc6d38c8d60399ba73aaa64bb", "text": "What the automation mostly does is make short-term trading that much more difficult. Day trading is a zero-sum game, so if they win more, everyone else wins less. Long term trading (years to decades) is a positive-sum game; the market as a whole tends to move upward for fairly obvious reasons (at its basis it's still investing, which in turn is based on lending, and as long as folks make fairly rational decisions about how much return they demand for their investment and the companies are mostly producing profits there will be a share of the profit coming back to the investors as dividends or increased share value or both. Day-to-day churn in individual stocks gets averaged out by diversification and time, and by the assumption that if you've waited that long you can wait a bit longer if necessary for jitters to settle out. Time periods between those will partake of some mix of the two.", "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": "5a5353cdeaaab9284846af6cae9b25d5", "text": "Why wouldn't you expect a long-term profit? Say you buy 100 shares of company X, selling for$1/share today. You hold it for 20 years, after which it's worth $10/share (in inflation-adjusted dollars). So you've made a profit, only making two trades (buy & sell). What the algorithmic traders have done with short-term trades during those 20 years is irrelevant to you. Now expand the idea. You want some diversification, so instead of one stock, you buy a bit of all the stocks on whatever index interests you, and you just hold them for the same 20 years. How has what the short-term traders done in the intervening time affected you?", "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": "1d78a5b716489ff3fa60038e90e411c1", "text": "\"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fd34136db8af0881a1428438fb5726", "text": "\"Index funds may invest either in index components directly or in other instruments (like ETFs, index options, futures, etc.) which are highly correlated with the index. The specific fund prospectus or description on any decent financial site should contain these details. Index funds are not actively managed, but that does not mean they aren't managed at all - if index changes and the fund includes specific stock, they would adjust the fund content. Of course, the downside of it is that selling off large amounts of certain stock (on its low point, since it's being excluded presumably because of its decline) and buying large amount of different stock (on its raising point) may have certain costs, which would cause the fund lag behind the index. Usually the difference is not overly large, but it exists. Investing in the index contents directly involves more transactions - which the fund distributes between members, so it doesn't usually buy individually for each member but manages the portfolio in big chunks, which saves costs. Of course, the downside is that it can lag behind the index if it's volatile. Also, in order to buy specific shares, you will have to shell out for a number of whole share prices - which for a big index may be a substantial sum and won't allow you much flexibility (like \"\"I want to withdraw half of my investment in S&P 500\"\") since you can't usually own 1/10 of a share. With index funds, the entry price is usually quite low and increments in which you can add or withdraw funds are low too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1049121ec177abfc5cd10991f71b76c", "text": "Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse. Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.", "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": "cfc707d9a22071924bec908c2ec0b80d", "text": "\"What do I mean by infrastructure? Well, if you're doing algorithmic trading, you have to have something monitoring data and making decisions on its own, presumably. How do you set that up? There are many ways, and some are better than others. First is a problem of scale. If you're a newbie starting out with some small set of equity tick data, perhaps just trades for instance, you can whip together something that can handle that pretty easily. Check out http://www.marketdatapeaks.com/ though. That's your messaging rates you have to deal with once you go full data feeds direct from all the exchanges. 6.65 million messages/events per second. That's a lot. And if you fall behind, you lose your lunch. Building a robust system that allows you to easily backtest and deploy strategies is crucial as well. The speed at which you're able to conduct the backtest matters a lot. Doing that rapidly, and accurately is not easy. For a broad market-data handling algo design (and now, clearly, for very specific things you can design one that'll handle stuff better for that one corner case, but this is for general algo trading), optimally you have some sort of setup where you have a: [feed handlers] -> [tickerplant] -> [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -> [order management system] -> [broker] in this setup you have feed handlers that are taking the raw exchange feeds and pushing them to a consolidated tickerplant, where CEP subscribers can come through and sub to the data they want (perhaps I just want ES futures on one, and only want to arb CMCSA and CMCSK on another -- you dont want each CEP subscriber getting your full feed for all tickers all the time, its a waste). so more or less, each independent strategy is its own subscriber to the tickerplant, taking whatever data it wants and only that data (could be \"\"give me all the trades and quotes for all nasdaq stocks, but not book depth\"\" for instance). your CEP does whatever maths it has to do to figure out trading decisions, and when it does, it sends it to your order management system which does your risk checks, etc (\"\"do you have enough money to place this trade?\"\" \"\"do you already have a position in this?\"\" \"\"are you trading against yourself?\"\" ... million other things). your OMS knows how to talk to your broker/directly to the exchange depending on your setup. Assuming all your risk checks pass, off the order goes to the exchange, and it deals with the fill msgs, etc. Now, as far as speed is concerned - try to do all of this at 6.5 million events/second. It's hard. Some strats/cep subscribers will run faster than others, some are slower, some need to keep a full book to work while some work on just trades. Your OMS depending on if youre using only market data sources may need to keep its own book to place orders on behalf of your subscribers if they lack information about various markets (think all the twitter trading bots these days for instance), etc. If you look back at the above setup as well, you'll notice some interesting things. [tickerplant] -> [cep subscriber] portion can stay the same for live trading or backtesting. This is huge. The only thing that changes here for backtesting is that if you're trying to backtest, you can take historical data (query it out of your hopefully column-store database) and push it into your tickerplant rather than having it come from a live feed through the feed handler. Your tickerplant and cep subscriber will never know the difference, so you can use the same exact code for backtesting as you can for live. On the other end, you obviously cant send historical orders to your live broker, so you need to code a simulated OMS that does the backtest simulation (another huge piece of software to code that is hard to do well). But, for backtesting, your setup is staying largely the same except those two end pieces. This means that testing/deving/deploying strats can be pretty rapid, and uses the same code base for live and historical, which helps you eliminate bugs and have to code everything twice. Backtesting design: [historical mkt data db] -> [tickerplant] -> [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -> [order management system simulator/backtester] These are just a few of the many problems that you hit when trying to dev good infra. There are like a million more. Point was simply, it's complicated. And C++ is a good lang. I use a wide variety of languages depending on exactly whats going on and how fast the code needs to be. With a proper tickerplant design, youre using some ipc protocol so a subscriber can be coded in any language. Check out http://www.zeromq.org/ -- thats an excellent piece of software to use to make a tickerplant out of, think they even have a design for one in the docs if I recall. With that, your CEP subscribers can be in any language - perhaps pure C if you need the speed, perhaps .NET or Java if you dont (check out http://esper.codehaus.org/ for a Java implement of a CEP subscriber, nEsper for the C# port of that I believe). But I use C, C++, C#, python, R, x86 asm for a few very minor things, and a lang or two I can't mention here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe88507bbc13e2adef09b375816123b", "text": "\"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "291ef739389b414110b5d02538f9e616", "text": "\"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \"\"formula\"\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \"\"fun\"\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc13b77121e726d4bd44e842f8bf0db8", "text": "ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96a7f25ee20dc1b974b4c5e296b433dd", "text": "if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f366730956ea4bee7d72f14b62e32ce", "text": "There are a few flaws in your reasoning: I know my portfolio will always keep going up, No, it won't. You'll have periods of losses. You are starting your investing in a bull market. Do NOT be fooled into believing that your successes now will continue indefinitely. The more risky your portfolio, the bigger the losses. The upside of a risky portfolio is that the gains generally outweigh the losses, but there will be periods of losses. I honestly don't believe that it's possible for me to end up losing in the long term, regardless of risk. I think you vastly underestimate the risk of your strategy and/or the consequences of that risk. There's nothing wrong with investing in risky assets, since over time you'll get higher-than-average returns, but unless you diversify you are exposing yourself to catastrophic losses as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23e3c409e1db5b21d412f0ca4e4f846b", "text": "\"The stock market may not grow \"\"forever\"\". There will be growth in the stock market, though. The stock market is a positive-sum game, since it is driven in large part by the profits earned by the companies. This doesn't mean that any individual stock will go up forever, it doesn't mean that any given index will go up forever, and it doesn't mean there won't be periods when the market as a whole drops. But it is reasonable to expect that long-term investing in the market as a whole will continue to return profits that reflect the success of companies invested in. Historically, that return has averaged about 8%; future results may be different and exact results will depend on exactly when and how you invest. Re \"\"what about Japan, which has been flat over 30 years\"\": Market being flat doesn't mean individual companies may not be growing strongly. Picking stocks may become more important, and we might need to relearn to focus on dividends rather than being so monomaniacal about growth (dividends are not reflected in the indices, please note), but there will be money to be made. How much, and how much effort is required to get it, and whether the market offers the best available bets, deponent sayeth not. Past results are no guarantee of future returns, and your results may be better or worse than average. You should be diversified into bonds and such anyway, rather than only in the stock market.\"", "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": "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": "55007fd29e85f7c0371128de9781b4b8", "text": "\"Think about the implications if the world worked as your question implies that it \"\"should\"\": A $15 share of stock would return you (at least) $15 after 3 months, plus another $15 after 6 months, plus another after 9 and 12 months. This would have returned to you $60 over the year that you owned it (plus you still own the share). Only then would the stock be worth buying? Anything less than $60 would be too little to be worth bothering about for $15? Such a thing would indeed be worth buying, but you won't find golden-egg laying stocks like that on the stock market. Why? Because other people would outbid your measly $15 in order to get this $60-a-year producing stock (in fact, they would bid many hundreds of dollars). Since other people bid more, you can't find such a deal available. (Of course, there are the points others have brought up: the earnings per share are yearly, not quarterly, unless otherwise noted. The earnings may not be sent to you at all, or only a small part, but you would gain much of their value because the company should be worth about that much more by keeping the earnings.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a025d389c97e33531f1be1392b2444c3", "text": "\"When you buy a stock, you're really paying for a STREAM of earnings, from now till whenever. The job of an investor is to figure out how large that stream will be in the future. But if the stock price were the same as \"\"earnings\"\" (for one year), it would mean that you would get all future earnings for \"\"free.\"\" That's not likely to happen unless 1) the company is in liquidation,\"\" meaning \"\"no future\"\" and 2) it earned ALL of the money it ever earned in the past year, meaning \"\"no past.\"\" If there are likely to be any earnings in the future, you will have to pay for those future earnings, over and above what was earned in the most recent year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf00ff1b52ea3a19a9d3dd9db39090b0", "text": "First, the earnings are per year, not per quarter. Why would you expect to get a 100% per year return on your money? The earnings can go one of two ways. They can be retained, reinvested in the company, or they can be distributed as a dividend. So, the 'return' on this share is just over 5%, which is competitive with the rate you'd get on fixed investments. It's higher, in fact, as there's the risk that comes with holding the stock.", "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": "b070c874aafa6d7e575f97ac83d90b0b", "text": "Stock prices are set by supply and demand. If a particular stock has a high EPS, say, $100, then people will bid more for that stock, driving up its price over one with a $10 EPS. Your job as an investor is to find stocks with low share prices, but which will give you high earnings (either in dividends, our future share price). This means finding stocks which you believe the market has priced incorrectly, for whatever reason (as an example, many bank stocks are being punished right now, even if the underlying banks are in good shape financially). If you want to beat the market indices, be prepared to do a lot of research, because you're trying to outsmart the market as a whole.", "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": "2ca4fe8511e65b7cb8ff2d94ddb5fe0e", "text": "What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "597ca1be1e42819544c011da5e3bc91e", "text": "It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0032eafca184fb6973d7d72b2f60f85", "text": "If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis then the stock price reflects the information known to market participants. Consequently, if the 'market' expected earnings to rise, and they did, then the price won't change. Clearly there are circumstances, especially in the short term and for illiquid stocks, where this isn't true, but a lot of work points to this being the case on average.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6d448479416e0b711cbe1316622585d", "text": "The stock price is what people think a company is worth, this is made up of When a company pays out a dividend the money in the company’s bank account reduces, therefore the value of the company reduces. When a company says they are going to pay a larger dividend than expected, we start to expect they are going to make more profit next year as well. So stock price tends to go up when a company says it is increasing the dividend, but down on the day then money leaves the companies bank account. There is normally many months between the two events.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "216fb89e9f562ceb58dd1d07bd9fc3dc", "text": "all other things being equal if you have two stocks, both with a P/E of 2, and one has an EPS of 5 whereas the other has an EPS of 10 is the latter a better purchase? What this really boils down to is the number of shares a company has outstanding. Given the same earnings & P/E, a company with fewer shares will have a higher EPS than a company with more shares. Knowing that, I don't think the number of shares has much if anything to do with the quality of a company. It's similar to the arguments I hear often from people new to investing where they think that a company with a share price of $100/share must be better than a company with a share price of $30/share simply because the share price is higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b152e7bee118585712db496fe8c45a9d", "text": "There are a few reason why share prices increase or decrease, the foremost is expectation of the investors that the company/economy will do well/not well, that is expectation of profit/intrinsic value growth over some time frame (1-4 qtrs.)there is also demand & supply mismatch over (usually) short time. If you really see, the actual 'value' of a company is it's net-worth (cash+asset+stock in trade+brand value+other intangibles+other incomes)/no of shares outstanding, which (in a way) is the book value, then all shares should trade at their book value, the actual number but it does not, the expectation of investors that a share would be purchased by another investor at a higher price because the outlook of the company over a long time is good.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31389a73cfb89b48bea2c20e060166c5", "text": "Imagine how foolish the people that bought Apple at $100 must have felt. It was up tenfold for the $10 it traded at just years prior, how could it go any higher? Stocks have no memory. A stock's earnings may grow and justify the new higher price people are willing to pay. When FB came public, I remarked how I'd analyze the price and felt it was overvalued until its earnings came up. Just because it's gone down ever since, doesn't make it a buy, yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bccb2ad622d8dc8ba8b3cb146cbd4d41", "text": "\"I don't know why there is so much confusion on such a simple concept. The answer is very simple. A stock must eventually pay dividends or the whole stock market is just a cheap ponzi scheme. A company may temporarily decided to reinvest profits into R&D, company expansion, etc. but obviously if they promised to never pay dividends then you can never participate in the profits of the company and there is simply no intrinsic value to the stock. For all of you saying 'Yeah but the stock price will go up!', please people get a life. The only reason the price goes up is in anticipation of dividend yield otherwise WHY would the price go up? \"\"But the company is worth more and the stock is worth more\"\" A stocks value is not set by the company but by people who buy and sell in the open market. To think a stock's price can go up even if the company refuses to pay dividends is analogous to : Person A says \"\"Hey buy these paper clips for $10\"\". But those paper clips aren't worth that. \"\"It doesn't matter because some fool down the line will pay $15\"\". But why would they pay that? \"\"Because some fool after him will pay $20\"\" Ha Ha!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801", "text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95", "text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.", "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": "177520afa3ba3c94f80b068568d73cc0", "text": "\"Note that we do not comment on specific stocks here, and have no place doing so. If your question is only about that specific stock then it is off topic. I have not tried to answer that part below. The key to valuation is predicting the net present value of all of a company's cash flows; i.e. of their future profits and losses. Through a number of methods to long to explain here investment banks and hedge funds work out what they expect the company's cash flows to be and trade so that these future profits, losses etc. are priced into the stock price. Since future cash flows, profits or whatever you want to call them are priced in, the price of a stock shouldn't move at all on an earnings statement. This begs the question \"\"why do some stock prices move violently when they announce earnings?\"\" The models that the institutional investors use are not perfect and cannot take into account everything. An unexpected craze for a product or a supply chain agreement breaking down on not being as good as it seems will not be factored into this pricing and so the price will move based on the degree to which expectation is missed or exceeded. Since penny socks are speculative their value is based far more on the long term expected cash flows and less on the short run cash flows. This goes a long way to explaining why some of the highest market capitalisation penny stocks are those making consistent losses. This means that they can be far less susceptible to price movements after an earnings announcement even if it is well out of the consensus range. Higher (potential) future value comes with the higher risks of penny stocks which discounts current value. In the end if people's expectation of the company's performance reflects reality then the profitability is priced in and there will be no price movement. If the actuality is outside of the expected range then there will be a price movement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf00b9c64d4aabe8b6bd0614ef9c82ef", "text": "Are you really talking about share price, or share value? Because what about stock splits? Market Cap stays the same, but the price per share is lowered. This is so that the stock is more liquid and accessible to a greater number of investors. This encourages people to invest in the stock though. I can't really think of any reasons why a company would want to lower their share value or discourage people from investing unless they are trying to reacquire shares. Returning value to the shareholders is the #1 priority of any publicly traded company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd3a39f62b2c1d88d7d979fe0bea2df1", "text": "In addition to D. Stanley's very fine answer, the price of stocks change as a result of changing market conditions and the resulting investor estimation of its effect on the company's future earnings. Take these examples. Right now, in the USA, there is a housing shortage; that is, there are fewer houses available for purchase than there are willing buyers. Investors will correctly assume that the future earnings of home builders will be higher than they were, say ten years ago. Seeking to capitalize on these higher earnings, they will try to buy the stocks. However, the current owners of the stock, potentially the sellers, know the same thing as the investor-buyer and therefore demand a premium to entice a sale. The price of the stock has risen. The reverse is true, also. Brick and mortar retailers are declining as more consumers prefer on-line retail shopping. The current owners of these stocks will probably want to sell their stock before it is worth even less. The investor-buyer also knows the same facts; that future earnings will most likely be less for these companies. The potential buyer offers a very low price to entice a sale. The price of the stock has fallen. Finally, the price of stocks rise and fall with general market conditions. As an example, assume that next months jobs report is released showing that 350,000 new jobs were created in July. Investors will believe that if companies are hiring, then the companies are doing well; they are selling products and services at a higher than expected rate, requiring that they add new employees. They will also conclude that those 350,000 new employees will be spending their salaries to buy not just food, clothing and shelter, but also a few luxuries like a newer car, a TV, perhaps even a new home (please see paragraph 2!). All of these companies will have more business, more earnings and, likely, a higher stock price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035", "text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0eb89b0e9bf01c21aaade926811a1db", "text": "I think the answer to this must differ from country to country. I have lived in several countries where the normal everyday way of making a payment is to instruct my bank to transfer the money to the recipient's account. Of course this means I must know his name, SC and account number – but this is an accepted part of the system; businesses routinely display that information on invoices and correspondence. It is simply not regarded as confidential. DumbCoder's comment suggests that if he has that information he can take money from my account without my permission – in other words, my bank will pay money out of my account on someone else's request, without my authority. Is this correct? In which country or countries can this happen? (I must go there quickly and begin stealing people's money.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b80ed39ad62f15207fc29041b47cdf25", "text": "When you want to pay a bill on line there are several ways to do it. You can give them your credit card details: Name on Card, zip code, credit card number, and 3 or 4 digit security code on the back. Most of the information is available on the card or via an easy Google search. If the crook has your card they can use it to buy something. You can contact your bank's website and establish a one time or recurring transfer. You provide the information about the person/company. Your bank knows who you are because you used a secure system and your password. Their bank accepts the money because who would refuse money, they don't care who you are. You can provide the company with your bank info (bank number, your account number, and your name). If your bank limits their transactions via this method only to legitimate organizations, then your money will only be sent to legitimate organizations. But if the organization has no way of knowing who is on the other end of the phone or webpage, they may be withdrawing money from a bank account without the account owners permission. In the example article a person found a charity that had lax security standards, they were recognized by the bank as a legitimate organization, so the bank transferred the money. The charity will point to the form and say they had permission from the owner, but in reality they didn't. The subject of the article was correct, all the info required is on every check. It is just that most people are honest, and the few security hurdles that exist do stop most of the fraud.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44afc87202a16f7f76991138c5fdf24c", "text": "I disagree with Dumbcoder's response. Setting up a DD is not easily approved by the banks as you must prove a existing business cash flow. And secondly you cannot empty someone's account via DD as they are protected by the DD mandate. (Money goes out, complaint is made, money goes back in, the registered business with the DD facility has some serious explaining to do to the bank and FCA). Dumbcoder you likely work in a middle position of a company..", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1106f53035aa74ff20d51f8c9d233ccc", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "860266c5f091ca5d690561f10b47edb1", "text": "\"Here are a handful of measures I take myself: I check my credit reports once in a while and look for anything out of the ordinary. If somebody calls me on the telephone claiming to be from my bank or credit card company, utility, etc. I ask for their number, check it, and call them back. I don't give personal information to people merely claiming to be from a place I do business with. I never fill out ballots for free contests. Most of the time these are scams. When I get a call telling me \"\"you won a free cruise\"\" for a ballot I supposedly filled out at the mall, I say they're lying through their teeth. For excitement, I'll sometimes buy a lotto ticket instead. I'm careful when I surf the web. I don't give my personal information to web sites I can't trust. If they look the least bit shady, I'm out. Also, I use different passwords at different web sites. I avoid using a password from a public terminal, but when I must, I change my password soon after. I'm careful when I download software. I don't install anything I didn't get from a trusted source. I pay for software when necessary, so finding a trusted source is not hard. But, I've heard of people who – to save a buck – would download a pirated application from a shady warez site only to be \"\"gifted\"\" a trojan horse key logging or other spyware along with it. When I no longer need a bill, receipt, statement, etc. or any document containing personal information, I shred it, and I use a shredder that does a micro-cut, not just a strip- or cross-cut. The micro-cut remains go in the green bin with wet and yucky organic waste. When I no longer need a hard drive, I use a secure wiping tool like Darik's Boot & Nuke before reusing. If the drive isn't worth reusing, I'll wipe first then take apart with my Torx screwdriver. Once I have the drive platter, I scratch the heck out of it. Remains go to the community recycling depot. That's all I can think of right now; I probably missed a few :-) So, what do others do? I'm curious, too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c94c26639d33108d45b4df3e1118d66c", "text": "\"You've touched on a very abstract concept that exist partly due to fractional-reserves and directly due to currency having no base (ex. not backed by gold), money can and does just pop into existence. To answer your question, we have to understand that the criminal is irrelevant. \"\"Can't a cyber criminal increase/decrease a bank's holdings just by changing a number in a computerized ledger book?\"\" The bank wouldn't need the cyber criminal's aid, they could change their own holdings. They have their own computers after all. Money's value is derived from trust. A bank that would change its own books would be black-balled. Similarly, a bank that un/consciously allows a cyber criminal change their holdings would lose trust. If this was a small transaction, they bank bottom line is unaffected. If these scandal is large enough to affect a bank's bottom line, the difference would be noticeable and raise suspicion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e9e89ee49bbbee7ded9f41224cb3f05", "text": "With Mint you are without a doubt telling a third party your username and password. If mint gets compromised, or hires a bad actor, technically there isn't anything to stop shenanigans. You simply must be vigilant and be aware of your rights and the legal protections you have against fraud. For all the technical expertise and careful security they put in place, we the customers have to know that there is not, nor will there ever be, a perfectly secure system. The trade off is what you can do for the increased risk. And when taken into the picture of all the Other* ways you banking information is exposed, and how little you can do about it, mint.com is only a minor increase in risk in my opinion. *See paypal, a check's routing numbers, any e-commerce site you shop at, every bank that has an online facing system, your HR dept's direct deposit and every time you swipe your debit / credit card somewhere. These are all technically risks, some of which are beyond your control to change. Short of keeping your money in your mattress you can't avoid risk. (And then your mattress catches fire.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66f6cd9c8932841386497823161fcfe0", "text": "The reason people like Mint is because it allows you to see all of your financial details in one place. When you create an account, you’re able to link all of your bank accounts, credit cards, and investment accounts. This linking enables Mint to update your transactions automatically. The catch is that you have to provide the username and password you use for each one, which can certainly make you feel jittery if you’re worried about a security breach. Mint is designed to be a read-only service, which means you can’t transfer money back and forth between accounts. If someone were to get their hands on your Mint login, all they’d be able to do is view your balances and transactions. Your full account numbers aren’t displayed, nor are your bank account or credit card usernames and passwords. The only thing that would be visible would be your email address. If a hacker was interested in taking things a step further, there’s always the possibility that they could physically steal the information from Mint’s secure servers – but that’s really a long shot. That would require knowing where the servers are located, bypassing the physical security measures that are in place, and cracking the code on how the data is encrypted. If that were to happen, then your personal information might be at risk, but so far, there’s no record of it being attempted. I was very skeptical of Mint and how secure it truly was. I did my fair share of research. Try looking at:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e987107dbb4125793c6317940aa88a4", "text": "\"It's anonymous/automated. They don't know who you are, just that customer x1a bought y. If your name isnt given to employees \"\"your\"\" privacy isnt being volated because the dont know its \"\"you.\"\" I imagine the government justifies their intrusions on our digital privacy the same way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f267f8d8189cd55408b9a859789047c", "text": "Yes. It is a scam. The story makes no sense. They just want your info to steal your money. regarding requests to know how it works: the scammer is requesting: username, password, routing number, checking account number, and security question/answers. they now have access to your bank account. they will have access until you are able to shut it down. Once they have your password, they can change it to whatever they want. it can be used to launder money, steal money from other accounts you have, proof of identity...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbbbb498e32b3999a3b4d25aeb30d42e", "text": "I would worry more about identity theft than your credit score at first. I would want an explanation of how it happened and confirm that no one has used it. I don't think it will be too big of a deal on your credit in the longer term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48f3bd9101698cd08d0ebd81dfffb549", "text": "Aside from the fact that you could now get spam calls and mailings, nothing negative at all. With your account number, anyone can send you money (which you probably wouldn't mind), but otherwise, no access is possible. In Germany, every company and many people publish their account number, so they can receive payment. Every invoice contains address, phone number, and account numbers of the company that bills you, so you are able to send them money to pay the invoice. Nobody can access the money or details of your account with only the name and number; it needs your online login user id and password, or your (government issued) ID to do so. You don't need to worry at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3179e94f6575f62b120ad585ad7631fc", "text": "\"Answers to your questions: (1) Do bank account numbers have a checksum. NO. (2) Is it plausible that they found out your number after sending you the money by \"\"accident\"\". NO. There is no way to find out who possesses a particular bank account just by the number. Also, how they even know they made a mistake? They targeted you and knew who you were and your bank account number before the \"\"money\"\" was sent. (3 and 4) Is this a scam? YES. They never paid you any money. They forged a check for a large amount and deposited it in an account. Then divided it up, wiring pieces to multiple people, all of whom they investigated beforehand. Since it is a bank to bank transfer it clears. Once the forgery is discovered, all the transfers will be unwound. If you had sent them money, you would have lost that money. Other things to note: There is zero chance of a wire transfer going to the wrong person because the sender has to list the name and address on the account as well as the number. You basically did the right thing which is to notify your bank that you received an unauthorized transfer into your account. Never accept money into your account from someone you don't know. If money \"\"appears\"\" in your account tell the bank it is an error and probably proceeds from a forgery and they will take care of it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "882cbd406a8b1849647272257c95b90e", "text": "\"Unfortunately, Australian bureocrats made it impossible to register a small business without making the person's home address, full name, date of birth and other personal information available to the whole world. They tell us the same old story about preventing crime, money laundering and terrorism, but in fact it is just suffocating small business in favour of capitalistic behemoths. With so many weirdos and identity thieves out there, many people running a small business from home feel unsafe publishing all their personal details. I use a short form of my first name and real surname for my business, and reguraly have problems cashing in cheques written to this variation of my name. Even though I've had my account with this bank for decades and the name is obviously mine, just a pet or diminitive form of my first name (e.g. Becky instead of Rebecca). This creates a lot of inconvenience to ask every customer to write the cheque to my full name, or make the cheque \"\"bearer\"\" (or not to cross \"\"or bearer\"\" if it is printed on the cheque already). It is very sad that there is protection for individual privacy in Australia, unless you can afford to have a business address. But even in this case, your name, date of birth and other personal information will be pusblished in the business register and the access to this information will be sold to all sorts of dubious enterprises like credit report companies, debt collectors, market researchers, etc. It seems like Australian system is not interested in people being independent, safe, self-sufficient and working for themselves. Everyone has to be under constant surveliance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7140611637ffc227408550e614481205", "text": "As far as I understand, equifax collects data about individuals and scores their credit worthiness. The ceo did Jack shit about keeping all that private data safe, so they got hacked and all that data is now in someone else's hands. The possible implications? Large scale identify fraud of anyone whose details got stolen, since it encompasses everything that is needed for that. And that is besides the privacy violation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b93e0783a91335c0418e313471690db", "text": "\"Mostly ditto to @grade'eh'bacon, but let me add a couple of comments: Before I did anything, I'd find out more about what's going on. Anytime someone tells me that there's a problem with \"\"security codes or something\"\", I get cautious. Think about what the possibilities are here. Your relative is being scammed. In that case, helping him to transfer his money to the scammer is not the kind of help you really want to give. Despite your firm belief in your relative's integrity, he may have been seduced by the dark side. If he's doing something illegal, I'd be very careful about getting involved. My friends and relatives don't ask me to commit crimes for them, especially not in a way that leaves me holding the bag if things go wrong. Assuming that what is going on here is all legal and ethical, still there is the possibility that you could be making yourself liable for taxes, fees, whatever. At the very least I'd want to know what those are up front. As @Grade'eh'bacon, if he really has a problem with a lost password or expired account, by all means help him fix that problem. But become someone else's financial intermediary has many possible pitfalls.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdab6762751912456eb59e1b21dac3ad", "text": "If its JavaScript-based you can check the source code to see if any messages are being sent, again this doesn't mean the code's malicious. if there's any type of form submission you can't tell. You could always implement it yourself, SHA1 is publicly accessible although not the easiest algorithm to build.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a84f16ada81922d72884f228646ce307", "text": "I spoke to HMRC and they said #1 is not allowable but #2 is. They suggested using either their published exchange rates or I could use another source. I suggested the Bank of England spot rates and that was deemed reasonable and allowable.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7d12a52d03a621e3d9f0f92a4ca323b5", "text": "Your CPA doesn't need to file anything, so don't worry about him being sidetracked. You are the one doing the filing. Since the amended returns have to be filed on paper, you'll actually go and mail a package to the IRS (each return in a separate envelope). The reason the CPA suggests to file the amended returns after the current one, is to ensure the NOL is registered in the system before the amended returns are processed. The IRS doesn't have to automatically accept the amended returns, and if there's no NOL on the current year they may just bounce the amended returns back to you. Keep in mind that since you haven't filed your return by the due date (including extensions), you're now unable to forego the carry-back. I don't know if you discussed this with your CPA, but you're allowed, if you chose so, to not apply the NOL to prior years, and instead to apply it forward for the next 20 years (or until it runs out). Depending on your income pattern, that might have been something you could have considered, but you can only chose this if you file a statement before the due date (with extensions), which is now passed.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "34d57c7a08a5dd688d106df63ac97be0", "text": "If for any tax year, you were eligible to make deductible contributions to a Traditional IRA, and did make the contributions in timely fashion, then there is no need to file Form 8606 for that year. Form 8606 (which tracks your basis in the IRA) is needed if Form 8606 is also needed if", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ff48ab59c694db453df646f2d03e011", "text": "\"If you're \"\"living off the land\"\" and make no money, then you don't have to file. Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC). If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right? That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5bb48681b5df3512b1d651714b729d6", "text": "When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de9f45b8acc39f4bc9c42744ee75b90b", "text": "I remember reading in an earlier version of Pub 590 (or possibly the Instructions for Form 8606) that timely contributions for Year X to an IRA are deemed to have been made on January 1 of Year X regardless of when they were actually made, but I don't seem to be able to find it now in current versions of Pubs 590a or 590b and so cannot include a citation of chapter and verse. Be that as it may, the calculations on on Form 8606 Part I effectively track basis on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, and so the fact that the Traditional IRA has a zero balance (and basis 0 too) at some time during the year doesn't matter in the least. In detail (though you didn't ask for it) Note that the whole $6500 that you put in remains non-deductible in its entirety, but you owe taxes on only $93,900 of that $100K that you rolled over into a Roth IRA and not on the whole $100K as you were assuming would have been the case. So, in effect, of that $6500 nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, you did really get to deduct $6100 from your taxable income for 2016, and make only a $400 nondeductible contribution, exactly equal to your basis in your Traditional IRA as per the Form 8606 calculations. I can only assume that the software package that you are using reproduces the above calculations exactly and does what the IRS says you must do on Form 8606 rather than what you get by tracking the basis on a daily basis. IRS regulations and instructions are not necessarily the same as what the tax law says; they are interpretations of the tax law based on what the IRS understands the tax law to say. People have challenged various specific IRS regulations and interpretations as being different from what the law says in Tax Court and been successful in some cases and failed in others. If you believe that tracking basis on a daily basis is what the law says (instead of just being reasonable and rational: reasonableness and rationality are not required either of Congress in the laws that they write or the IRS regulations that interpret the laws), you should take up the matter with the IRS or the Tax Court.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cf63e0a6b14a3f437fae3eb24f15d04", "text": "\"Can I write off the $56,000 based on demand letters? Or do I need to finish suing him to write-off the loss? No and no. You didn't pay taxes on the money (since you didn't file tax returns...), so what are you writing off? If you didn't get the income - you didn't get the income. Nothing to write off. Individuals in the US are usually cash-based, so you don't write off income \"\"accrued but never received\"\" since you don't pay taxes on accrued income, only income you've actually received. Should I file the 2012 taxes now? Or wait until the lawsuit finishes? You should have filed by April 2013, more than a year ago. You might have asked for an extension till October 2013, more than half a year ago. Now - you're very very late, and should file your tax return ASAP. If you have some tax due - you're going to get hit with high penalties for underpaying and late filing. If the lawsuit finishes in 2014, does it apply to the 2012 taxes? Probably not, but talk to your lawyer. In any case - it is irrelevant to the question whether to file the tax return or not. If because of the lawsuit results something changes - you file an amended return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd10d90ffdb55b8ff054948c6a6d2926", "text": "\"You will be filing the exact same form you've been filing until now (I hope...) which is called form 1040. Attached to it, you'll add a \"\"Schedule C\"\" form and \"\"Schedule SE\"\" form. Keep in mind the potential effect of the tax and totalization treaties the US has with the UK which may affect your filings. I suggest you talk to a licensed EA/CPA who works with expats in the UK and is familiar with all the issues. There are several prominent offices you can find by Googling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d1e1dcc1720a7572a82eaa13e92c8cb", "text": "\"Your employer can require a W8-BEN or W-9 if you are a contractor, and in some special cases. I believe this bank managing your stock options can as well; it's to prove you don't have \"\"foreign status\"\". See the IRS's W-9 instructions for details.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13", "text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9d65921f3dd4bb75d269ea1873d8ddf", "text": "The default is FIFO: first in - first out. Unless you specifically instruct the brokerage otherwise, they'll report that the lot you've sold is of Jan 5, 2011. Note, that before 2011, they didn't have to report the cost basis to the IRS, and it would be up to you to calculate the cost basis at tax time, but that has been changed in 2011 and you need to make sure you've instructed the brokerage which lot exactly you're selling. I'm assuming you're in the US, in other places laws may be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4153a684b44027e27bd1175a20260689", "text": "\"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d814567aa5f5a1eaf61596718a3f55d", "text": "If you didn't receive the money in 2012 or have constructive receipt you really can't claim the income. If the company is going to give you a 1099 for the work they aren't going to give you one until next year and if you claim it this year you will have a hard time explaining the income difference. On the other hand if this isn't miscellaneous income, but rather self employment income and expenses you should be able to claim the expenses in 2012 and if you have a loss that would carry over to 2013. Note it is possible to use an accrual basis if you are running a business (which would allow you to do this), but it is more complex than the cash accounting individual tax payers use.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7774c2bceeeac395e113b4bb31b43ee7", "text": "Many of the custodians (ie. Schwab) file for an extension on 1099s. They file for an extension as many of their accounts have positions with foreign income which creates tax reporting issues. If they did not file for extension they would have to send out 1099s at the end of January and then send out corrected forms. Obviously sending out one 1099 is cheaper and less confusing to all. Hope that helps,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ba0fc654895d48fb795dea7fe3b64af", "text": "Yes, use a separate Form 8829 for each home used for business during the year. The top of 8829 includes that exact instruction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2d0ad1b83d45313a4dadac2270bbb42", "text": "\"no, good questions my friend. when did you do this rollover? if it was this year, your firm should have forms that you can fill out to \"\"undo\"\" the roth conversion - only earnings on your investments will be taxed, and everything gets rolled over to a traditional IRA. not fun for tax filing but... you can also leave them as is and pay the taxes (usually only a good option if it's a low income year for the filer). i would consult your tax advisor regardless in this situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c14d942d1cffc6f843d1aefbbc04b1f5", "text": "\"1099's and other official tax forms are often reported to the IRS by the issuer, whether or not you include a copy in your return. You should not neglect to include this income in your 2016 return in an attempt to balance out the two tax years. It's up to you whether or not you feel like filing an amended 2015 return to recover over-payment of taxes from that tax year. You have up to three years to amend tax returns using form 1040X. Since you couldn't have furnished a 1099 for this when you filed your 2015 return (otherwise you wouldn't be in receipt of it for tax year 2016), I'm assuming you reported it simply as \"\"Other Income\"\" and therefore would have been [over] taxed your marginal rate on it. From irs.gov: When to amend a return. You should file an amended return if you need to correct your filing status, number of dependents, total income, tax deductions or tax credits. The instructions for Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, list additional reasons to amend a return.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a", "text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a624586462392a84b59b2656031d90", "text": "Why would it not make more sense to invest in a handful of these heavyweights instead of also having to carry the weight of the other 450 (some of which are mostly just baggage)? First, a cap-weighted index fund will invest more heavily in larger cap companies, so the 'baggage' you speak of does take up a smaller percentage of the portfolio's value (not that cap always equates to better performance). There are also equal-weighted index funds where each company in the index is given equal weight in the portfolio. If you could accurately pick winners and losers, then of course you could beat index funds, but on average they've performed well enough that there's little incentive for the average investor to look elsewhere. A handful of stocks opens you up to more risk, an Enron in your handful would be pretty devastating if it comprised a large percentage of your portfolio. Additionally, since you pay a fee on each transaction ($5 in your example), you have to out-perform a low-fee index fund significantly, or be investing a very large amount of money to come out ahead. You get diversification and low-fees with an index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc8f593c174368c4c817cd8ea5e13e90", "text": "Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "217b83c42b6d95a98edc02217db6d947", "text": "The point of buying an index fund is that you don't have to pick winners. As long as the winners are included in the index fund (which can include far more than 500 stocks), you benefit on average because of overall upward historical market performance. Picking only the top 50 capitalized stocks in the S&P 500 does not guarantee you will successfully track the S&P 500 index because the stocks in the tail can account for an outsized amount of overall growth; the top 50 stocks by market capitalization change over time, and these stocks are not necessarily the stocks that perform better. As direct example, the 10 year average annual return for the S&P top 50 is 4.52%, while the 10 year average annual return for the S&P 500 is 5.10%. Issues of trading and balancing to maintain these aside, these indices are not the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b39b705716edf980e950a2be747a7b36", "text": "\"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9e3e301321b3674f2d82b887ba6c30", "text": "\"Comparing index funds to long-term investments in individual companies? A counterintuitive study by Jeremy Siegel addressed a similar question: Would you be better off sticking with the original 500 stocks in the S&P 500, or like an index fund, changing your investments as the index is changed? The study: \"\"Long-Term Returns on the Original S&P 500 Companies\"\" Siegel found that the original 500 (including spinoffs, mergers, etc.) would do slightly better than a changing index. This is likely because the original 500 companies take on a value (rather than growth) aspect as the decades pass, and value stocks outperform growth stocks. Index funds' main strength may be in the behavior change they induce in some investors. To the extent that investors genuinely set-and-forget their index fund investments, they far outperform the average investor who mis-times the market. The average investor enters and leaves the market at the worst times, underperforming by a few percentage points each year on average. This buying-high and selling-low timing behavior damages long-term returns. Paying active management fees (e.g. 1% per year) makes returns worse. Returns compound on themselves, a great benefit to the investor. Fees also compound, to the benefit of someone other than the investor. Paying 1% annually to a financial advisor may further dent long-term returns. But Robert Shiller notes that advisors can dissuade investors from market timing. For clients who will always follow advice, the 1% advisory fee is worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d69b994e0a8ea32c8004d3ddd9d6c9a", "text": "A lot of it boils down to these key points:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2", "text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd66966f0541ccfd05860777d41fc257", "text": "Eh using a benchmark that's designed for Hedge Funds is a little different. I was guessing the other comment was referring to SPX or similar for the 10%. Most people don't understand HF as investment vehicles. They are meant to be market neutral and focused on absolute returns. Yes, you can benchmark them against each other / strategy but most people here seem to think that HFs want to beat the S&P 500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94307b9b712f8bbbbda71d1a4df93e87", "text": "\"If I invest in index funds or other long term stocks that pay dividend which I reinvest, they don't need to be worth more per share for me to make a profit, right? That is, if I sell part of the stocks, it's GOOD if they're worth more than I bought them at, but the real money comes from the QUANTITY of stocks that you get by reinvesting your dividends, right? I would say it is more the other way around. It is nice to get dividends and reinvest them, but overall the main gain comes from the stocks going up in value. The idea with index funds, however, is that you don't rely on any particular stock going up in value; instead you just rely on the aggregate of all the funds in the index going up. By buying lots of stocks bundled in an index fund, you avoid being too reliant on any one company's performance. Can I invest \"\"small amounts\"\" (part of paycheck) into index funds on a monthly basis, like €500, without taking major \"\"transaction fees\"\"? (Likely to be index fund specific... general answers or specific answers using popular stocks welcomed). Yes, you can. At least in the US, whether you can do this automatically from your paycheck depends on whether you employer has that set up. I don't know that work in the Netherlands. However, at the least, you can almost certainly set up an auto-invest program that takes $X out of your bank account every month and buys shares of some index fund(s). Is this plan market-crash proof? My parents keep saying that \"\"Look at 2008 and think about what such a thing would do to your plan\"\", and I just see that it will be a setback, but ultimately irrelevant, unless it happens when I need the money. And even then I'm wondering whether I'll really need ALL of my money in one go. Doesn't the index fund go back up eventually? Does a crash even matter if you plan on holding stocks for 10 or more years? Crashes always matter, because as you say, there's always the possibility that the crash will occur at a time you need the money. In general, it is historically true that the market recovers after crashes, so yes, if you have the financial and psychological fortitude to not pull your money out during the crash, and to ride it out, your net worth will probably go back up after a rough interlude. No one can predict the future, so it's possible for some unprecedented crisis to cause an unprecedented crash. However, the interconnectedness of stock markets and financial systems around the world is now so great that, were such a no-return crash to occur, it would probably be accompanied by the total collapse of the whole economic system. In other words, if the stock market dies suddenly once and for all, the entire way of life of \"\"developed countries\"\" will probably die with it. As long as you live in such a society, you can't really avoid \"\"gambling\"\" that it will continue to exist, so gambling on there not being a cataclysmic market crash isn't much more of a gamble. Does what I'm planning have similarities with some financial concept or product (to allow me to research better by looking at the risks of that concept/product)? Maybe like a mortgage investment plan without the bank eating your money in between? I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"what you're planning\"\". The main financial products relevant to what you're describing are index funds (which you already mentioned) and index ETFs (which are basically similar with regard to the questions you're asking here). As far as concepts, the philosophy of buying low-fee index funds, holding them for a long time, and not selling during crashes, is essentially that espoused by Jack Bogle (not quite the inventor of the index fund, but more or less its spiritual father) and the community of \"\"Bogleheads\"\" that has formed around his ideas. There is a Bogleheads wiki with lots of information about the details of this approach to investing. If this strategy appeals to you, you may find it useful to read through some of the pages on that site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc", "text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d551a112c05e7e4ad3cf68a202c506dc", "text": "That is such a vague statement, I highly recommend disregarding it entirely, as it is impossible to know what they meant. Their goal is to convince you that index funds are the way to go, but depending on what they consider an 'active trader', they may be supporting their claim with irrelevant data Their definition of 'active trader' could mean any one or more of the following: 1) retail investor 2) day trader 3) mutual fund 4) professional investor 5) fund continuously changing its position 6) hedge fund. I will go through all of these. 1) Most retail traders lose money. There are many reasons for this. Some rely on technical strategies that are largely unproven. Some buy rumors on penny stocks in hopes of making a quick buck. Some follow scammers on twitter who sell newsletters full of bogus stock tips. Some cant get around the psychology of trading, and thus close out losing positions late and winning positions early (or never at all) [I myself use to do this!!]. I am certain 99% of retail traders cant beat the market, because most of them, to be frank, put less effort into deciding what to trade than in deciding what to have for lunch. Even though your pension funds presentation is correct with respect to retail traders, it is largely irrelevant as professionals managing your money should not fall into any of these traps. 2) I call day traders active traders, but its likely not what your pension fund was referring to. Day trading is an entirely different animal to long or medium term investing, and thus I also think the typical performance is irrelevant, as they are not going to manage your money like a day trader anyway. 3,4,5) So the important question becomes, do active funds lose 99% of the time compared to index funds. NO! No no no. According to the WSJ, actively managed funds outperformed passive funds in 2007, 2009, 2013, 2015. 2010 was basically a tie. So 5 out of 9 years. I dont have a calculator on me but I believe that is less than 99%! Whats interesting is that this false belief that index funds are always better has become so pervasive that you can see active funds have huge outflows and passive have huge inflows. It is becoming a crowded trade. I will spare you the proverb about large crowds and small doors. Also, index funds are so heavily weighted towards a handful of stocks, that you end up becoming a stockpicker anyway. The S&P is almost indistinguishable from AAPL. Earlier this year, only 6 stocks were responsible for over 100% of gains in the NASDAQ index. Dont think FB has a good long term business model, or that Gilead and AMZN are a cheap buy? Well too bad if you bought QQQ, because those 3 stocks are your workhorses now. See here 6) That graphic is for mutual funds but your pension fund may have also been including hedge funds in their 99% figure. While many dont beat their own benchmark, its less than 99%. And there are reasons for it. Many have investors that are impatient. Fortress just had to close one of its funds, whose bets may actually pay off years from now, but too many people wanted their money out. Some hedge funds also have rules, eg long only, which can really limit your performance. While important to be aware of this, that placing your money with a hedge fund may not beat a benchmark, that does not automatically mean you should go with an index fund. So when are index funds useful? When you dont want to do any thinking. When you dont want to follow market news, at all. Then they are appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84af74fe96101aba83d1b6e7c3bc8013", "text": "I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb28cf4e4e06bf5115246d92fa92e80b", "text": "\"There's a huge difference between \"\"can an anverage person make a profit on the stock market\"\" and \"\"can an average person get rich off the stock market\"\". It is certainly possible for an average person to profit, but of course you are unlikely to profit as much as the big Wall Street guys. An S&P 500 index fund, for instance, would be a pretty good way to profit. People with high-powered tools may make a lot of money picking individual stocks, and may even make some choices that help them when the market is down, but it's difficult to see how they could consistently make money over the long term without the S&P 500 also going up. The same applies, to varying extents, to various other index funds, ETFs, and mutual funds. I agree with littleadv that there is no single \"\"right\"\" thing for everyone to do. My personal take is that index funds are a good bet, and I've seen a lot of people take that view on personal finance blogs, etc. (for whatever that's worth). One advantage of index funds that track major indexes (like the S&P 500) is that because they are and are perceived as macro-indicators of the overall economic situation, at least you're in the same boat as many other people. On one level, that means that if you lose money a lot of other investors are also losing money, and when large numbers of people start losing money, that makes governments take action, etc., to turn things around. On another level, the S&P 500 is a lot of big companies; if it goes down, some of those big companies are losing value, and they will use their big-company resources to gain value, and if they succeed, the index goes up again and you benefit. In other words, index funds (and large mutual funds, ETFs, etc.) make investing less about what day-trading wonks focus on, which is trying to make a \"\"hot choice\"\" for a large gain. They make it more about hitching your wagon to an extremely large star that is powered by all the resources of extremely large companies, so that when those companies increase their value, you gain. The bigger the pool of people whose fortunes rise and fall with your own, the more you become part of an investment portfolio that is (I can't resist saying it) \"\"too big to fail\"\". That isn't to say that the S&P 500 can't lose value from time to time, but rather that if it does go down big and hard and stay there, you probably have bigger problems than losing money in the stock market (e.g., the US economy is collapsing and you should begin stockpiling bullets and canned food).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3ad56de12a1e57eee094f285039e940", "text": "\"I hope a wall of text with citations qualifies as \"\"relatively easy.\"\" Many of these studies are worth quoting at length. Long story short, a great deal of research has found that actively-managed funds underperform market indexes and passively-managed funds because of their high turnover and higher fees, among other factors. Longer answer: Chris is right in stating that survivorship bias presents a problem for such research; however, there are several academic papers that address the survivorship problem, as well as the wider subject of active vs. passive performance. I'll try to provide a brief summary of some of the relevant literature. The seminal paper that started the debate is Michael Jensen's 1968 paper titled \"\"The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964\"\". This is the paper where Jensen's alpha, the ubiquitous measure of the performance of mutual fund managers, was first defined. Using a dataset of 115 mutual fund managers, Jensen finds that The evidence on mutual fund performance indicates not only that these 115 mutual funds were on average not able to predict security prices well enough to outperform a buy-the-market-and-hold policy, but also that there is very little evidence that any individual fund was able to do significantly better than that which we expected from mere random chance. Although this paper doesn't address problems of survivorship, it's notable because, among other points, it found that managers who actively picked stocks performed worse even when fund expenses were ignored. Since actively-managed funds tend to have higher expenses than passive funds, the actual picture looks even worse for actively managed funds. A more recent paper on the subject, which draws similar conclusions, is Martin Gruber's 1996 paper \"\"Another puzzle: The growth in actively managed mutual funds\"\". Gruber calls it \"\"a puzzle\"\" that investors still invest in actively-managed funds, given that their performance on average has been inferior to that of index funds. He addresses survivorship bias by tracking funds across the entire sample, including through mergers. Since most mutual funds that disappear are merged into existing funds, he assumes that investors in a fund that disappear choose to continue investing their money in the fund that resulted from the merger. Using this assumption and standard measures of mutual fund performance, Gruber finds that mutual funds underperform an appropriately weighted average of the indices by about 65 basis points per year. Expense ratios for my sample averaged 113 basis points a year. These numbers suggest that active management adds value, but that mutual funds charge the investor more than the value added. Another nice paper is Mark Carhart's 1997 paper \"\"On persistence in mutual fund performance\"\" uses a sample free of survivorship bias because it includes \"\"all known equity funds over this period.\"\" It's worth quoting parts of this paper in full: I demonstrate that expenses have at least a one-for-one negative impact on fund performance, and that turnover also negatively impacts performance. ... Trading reduces performance by approximately 0.95% of the trade's market value. In reference to expense ratios and other fees, Carhart finds that The investment costs of expense ratios, transaction costs, and load fees all have a direct, negative impact on performance. The study also finds that funds with abnormally high returns last year usually have higher-than-expected returns next year, but not in the following years, because of momentum effects. Lest you think the news is all bad, Russ Wermer's 2000 study \"\"Mutual fund performance: An empirical decomposition into stock‐picking talent, style, transactions costs, and expenses\"\" provides an interesting result. He finds that many actively-managed mutual funds hold stocks that outperform the market, even though the net return of the funds themselves underperforms passive funds and the market itself. On a net-return level, the funds underperform broad market indexes by one percent a year. Of the 2.3% difference between the returns on stock holdings and the net returns of the funds, 0.7% per year is due to the lower average returns of the nonstock holdings of the funds during the period (relative to stocks). The remaining 1.6% per year is split almost evenly between the expense ratios and the transaction costs of the funds. The final paper I'll cite is a 2008 paper by Fama and French (of the Fama-French model covered in business schools) titled, appropriately, \"\"Mutual Fund Performance\"\". The paper is pretty technical, and somewhat above my level at this time of night, but the authors state one of their conclusions bluntly quite early on: After costs (that is, in terms of net returns to investors) active investment is a negative sum game. Emphasis mine. In short, expense ratios, transaction costs, and other fees quickly diminish the returns to active investment. They find that The [value-weight] portfolio of mutual funds that invest primarily in U.S. equities is close to the market portfolio, and estimated before fees and expenses, its alpha is close to zero. Since the [value-weight] portfolio of funds produces an α close to zero in gross returns, the alpha estimated on the net returns to investors is negative by about the amount of fees and expenses. This implies that the higher the fees, the farther alpha decreases below zero. Since actively-managed mutual funds tend to have higher expense ratios than passively-managed index funds, it's safe to say that their net return to the investor is worse than a market index itself. I don't know of any free datasets that would allow you to research this, but one highly-regarded commercial dataset is the CRSP Survivor-Bias-Free US Mutual Fund Database from the Center for Research in Security Prices at the University of Chicago. In financial research, CRSP is one of the \"\"gold standards\"\" for historical market data, so if you can access that data (perhaps for a firm or academic institution, if you're affiliated with one that has access), it's one way you could run some numbers yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cd20273e0629c4575627b1c7bed9f18", "text": "\"i know that hedge funds shouldn't be compared with index funds. they do different things. they serve different functions. but when the headline is they are reporting big gains, and then they report that \"\"Ken Griffin’s main Wellington and Kensington funds at Citadel rose almost 7 percent.\"\" YTD, and \"\"Andreas Halvorsen’s Viking and an equity-focused quantitative fund at Renaissance are up more than 9 percent this year through July\"\" as reporting \"\"Big Gains\"\" it's a little silly when an index fund like SCHB is up 10.7% YTD with an ER of 0.03.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fbd96694deb9cdb0de005f541ce5f6e", "text": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f13a3951eaed94fefa8904790031778", "text": "The idea behind investing in index funds is that you will not under perform the market but also at the same time not over perform against the market either. It is meant for those (majority of the investing population) who do not or cannot invest more time in actively researching different investment options. So even considering for a moment that the yields on the index funds will drop significantly in the future, since the fund is supposed to be replication of the whole market itself, the market too can be assumed to be giving significantly lower future yields. In my opinion the question that you ask is confusing/contradictory because, its like pegging the fund performance to an avg and then asking if it will be higher or lower in the future. But rather its always going to be exactly the average, even if the absolute yields turn higher or lower", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd4e8d8a1414e978825d104b7c83b25", "text": "Not better companies, they pick the largest market cap companies which isn't guaranteed to be the best. If they were so much better than there would be a much bigger difference between the S&P 500 and the vanguard total stock market fund: http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=VTSMX&region=usa&culture=en-US But as you can see above there is barely any difference in the gains between S&P and the total stock market fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "140b6fef7c8594dd3f234a710c425ab0", "text": "\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4ab5e53638af9a16dfdee22e011d0c8", "text": "If you just took money and banking you should probably be aiming for the sales end of the job. The trading end they're going to want you to know about option spreads (I remember my old Prof said [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes) was always good to know for finance interviews), annuities, financial statement analysis, and all that fun stuff. Either way flaunt your other skills and knowledge as well - accounting, technology, blah blah blah", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cb123ade4ccc7cfac85eccb067143e41", "text": "Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b", "text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8763fc2c07ef25982bf35c895dd7557", "text": "\"There are at least a couple problems: Your friend may not manage money well and so may not have enough money in the account. Check bounces. They get charged a fee. You get charged a fee. You have to chase after the friend to get the fee paid. The friend was cheap about the regular fees and doesn't want to pay this much higher fee. Your \"\"friend\"\" may really be a crook. The check is no good. Perhaps it's written under a false identity such that you are attempting to cash a stolen/forged check. You cash it. They take the money and disappear. You get charged with participating in the crime, go to jail, and now have a criminal record (worst case). My quick thought is that if you don't know the person well enough to know the home address, you don't know the person well enough to cash checks. In general, I would view this the same as a loan. When loaning to a friend, you should never loan more than you are willing to lose. Note that an actual loan would be safer. If you loan $50 to a friend, at worst you're out $50. If you deposit a fraudulent check, you did something illegal. You will have to be convincing when you tell your story to the police. If they don't believe you, they could charge you. A couple bad breaks and you could go to jail.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45430766fd9e2a4c81c5db997ceef669", "text": "The advice above is generally good, but the one catch I haven't seen addressed is which specific laws apply. You said that you are in Arkansas, but the dealer is in Texas. This means that the laws of at least two different states are in play, possibly three if the contract contains a clause stating that disputes will be handled in a certain jurisdiction, and you are going to have to do some research to figure out what actually applies. One thing that may significantly impact this issue is whether you were in TX or AR when you signed the contracts. If you borrowed the money in TX, and the lender is in TX, then it is almost certain that the laws of Texas will govern. However, if you were living in AR at the time you acquired the loan, particularly if you were in AR when you signed the papers, you have a decent case for claiming that the laws of Arkansas govern. I don't know enough about either state to know if one is more favorable to the consumer than the other, but it is a question you really want to have answered. That said, I would be shocked if any state did not have provisions requiring the lender to provide a copy of the terms and a detailed statement of the account and transaction history upon request. Spend some time on the web site of the Texas attorney general and/or legislator (because that is where the lender is, they are more likely to respect Texas law) to see if you can track down any specific laws or codes that you can reference. You might also look into the federal consumer protection laws, though I can't think of one off hand that would apply in the scenario you have described. Then work on putting together a letter asking them to provide a copy of the contract and a full history of the account. As others noted, make sure you send it certified/return receipt, or better yet use a private carrier such as fedex, and check the box about requiring a signature. Above all you need to get the dialog transferred to a written form. I can not stress this point enough. Everything you tell them or ask for from here out needs to be done in a written format. If they call you about anything, tell them you want to see their issue/offer in writing before you will consider it. You do not necessarily need a lawyer to do any of this, but you do need to know the applicable laws. Do the research to know what your legal standing is. Involve a lawyer if you feel you need to, but I have successfully battled several large utility companies and collection agencies into behaving without needing one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8d9a264811e3392550bcf41ffb67dda", "text": "buy a cashiers check with the cash (a CRT will be nec if over 10 K) and deposit the cashiers check", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8901ebcbe588b9b70a36bb5f84f71a5", "text": "\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e777d2a86f7c8909f956cb2d086fbfa0", "text": "\"Depending on where you are, you may be able to get away with filing a \"\"Doing Business As\"\" document with your local government, and then having the bank call the county seat to verify this. There is generally a fee for processing/recording/filing the DBA form, of course. But it's useful for more purposes than just this one. (I still need to file a DBA for my hobby work-for-pay, for exactly this reason.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0ba3a3f52735f9f8f5be47d45351fa7", "text": "\"If you wish to lend them the money, make the check payable to the order of \"\"loan\"\", not directly to your son or daughter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc9debd5d052930eabc49b7000d8de0", "text": "The person writing the check has already signed and endorsed it. The depositer's signature is not to confirm the check's validity, but to demonstrate that the check was depisited to the correct Fred Smith's account, and permit charges to be brought if, eg, Fred Bonzo Smith tries to steal Fred Gnorph Smith's check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a851a49cd357b224216792c74b6ab41d", "text": "Many businesses will request that you get a bank-issued check for large amounts of money. The exception is often in cases where you're not going anywhere: you can write a 50,000 check for a deposit on a new house, and you'll never have a problem, but a car dealer will probably request a counter check for the same sum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02a058752d659ec81be42f03e06b6ccb", "text": "Savings accounts have lower fees. If you don't anticipate doing many transactions per month, e.g. three or fewer withdrawals, then I would suggest a savings account rather than a checking account. A joint account that requires both account holder signatures to make withdrawals will probably require both account holders' signature endorsements, in order to make deposits. For example, if you are issued a tax refund by the U.S. Treasury, or any check that is payable to both parties, you will only be able to deposit that check in a joint account that has both persons as signatories. There can be complications due to multi-party account ownership if cashing versus depositing a joint check and account tax ID number. When you open the account, you will need to specify what your wishes are, regarding whether both parties or either party can make deposits and withdrawals. Also, at least one party will need to be present, with appropriate identification (probably tax ID or Social Security number), when opening the account. If the account has three or more owners, you might be required to open a business or commercial account, rather than a consumer account. This would be due to the extra expense of administering an account with more than two signatories. After the questioner specified interest North Carolina in the comments, I found that the North Carolina general banking statutes have specific rules for joint accounts: Any two or more persons may establish a deposit account... The deposit account and any balance shall be as joint tenants... Unless the persons establishing the account have agreed with the bank that withdrawals require more than one signature, payment by the bank to, or on the order of (either person on) the account satisfys the bank's obligation I looked for different banks in North Carolina. I found joint account terms similar to this in PDF file format, everywhere, Joint Account: If an item is drawn so that it is unclear whether one payee’s endorsement or two is required, only one endorsement will be required and the Bank shall not be liable for any loss incurred by the maker as a result of there being only one endorsement. also Joint accounts are owned by you individually or jointly with others. All of the funds in a joint account may be used to repay the debts of any co-owner, whether they are owed individually, by a co-owner, jointly with other co-owners, or jointly with other persons or entities having no interest in your account. You will need to tell the bank specifically what permissions you want for your joint account, as it is between you and your bank, in North Carolina.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc46bad77cc109cfa403d08ea54ba070", "text": "If they bring cash, meet at your bank to verify. If they want to use cashiers check, meet them at their bank. Large amounts use wires directly to your acct and verify (not only received, but deposited) before handing over the title/keys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6654e2df896eda68dbf3c8da9c17bbfb", "text": "I've done this, though with a loan company rather than a bank. We agreed on price, drove to the loan company's office (the seller having notified them in advance), I gave them the money, got the title, and they gave the balance to the seller. Important point is that you get the signed-off title from the lienholder.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057", "text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead7105d38ca69bb114bef6a04725d95", "text": "\"Your friend probably cannot deposit the check to your U.S. bank account. U.S. banks that I've worked with will not accept a deposit from someone who is not an owner of the account. I don't know why not. If some stranger wants to make unauthorized deposits to my account, why should I object? But that's the common rule. You could endorse the check, your friend could then deposit it to his own account or cash it, and then transfer the money to you in a variety of ways. But I think it would be easier to just deposit the check in your account wherever it is you live. Most banks have no problem with depositing a foreign check. There may be a fairly long delay before you can get access to the money while the check clears through the system. I don't know exactly what you mean by a \"\"prize check\"\", but assuming that this is taxable income, yes, I assume the U.S. government would want their hard-earned share of your money. These days you can pay U.S. taxes on-line if you have a credit card. If you have not already paid U.S. taxes for the year, you should make an \"\"estimated payment\"\". i.e. you can't wait until April 15 of the next year, you have to pay most or all of the taxes you will owe in the calendar year you earned it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31c281eb2eb9a00f332080b149465ff9", "text": "Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8226861e999d5309617e09affbc81fb2", "text": "\"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single \"\"balloon payment\"\" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's \"\"75% of the gross proceeds of the sale\"\". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that \"\"gross proceeds\"\" means \"\"before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale\"\"), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that? Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to \"\"refinance\"\" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable. For instance, do they have a lien on the property?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc232e3c84fde3822d8b7b8bd1043111", "text": "Ripped off may be too strong as it implies intent - I'm hopeful it's just bad logic or terminology. I would say better agreements would be: Borrowing money from family/friends is always risky. If you and your parents are comfortable with the situation and can reliably keep records of how much is owed at any given time (and how much of the $500/mo is interest) then the loan might be a good option. If not, and your parents don't need the income stream from the loan, then I would recommend the second option since it's much cleaner. In any case, make sure everything is in writing and the proper legal procedures are followed (just as if you had borrowed the money from a bank). That means either filing a mortgage with the county for option 1 or having both parties on the deed, and having the ownership percentages in writing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a0af25e03040e9e403abe4284ce6bb4", "text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da704574752205e27128f2f8b909fbb8", "text": "First, this was never an arrangement for you to build equity, this was an arrangement for them to speculate on another house under the guise of teaching you a life lesson like responsibility or something contrived. The only way you profit from this is if the value of the house goes up and you sell it. You get 25% of the proceeds, maybe. If this was an equitable arrangement then they would be paying 75% of the property taxes and a little more for your maintenance efforts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79a14eb7f059a16519403dbdf3411f50", "text": "You are getting totally hosed mate. Assume you live in the house for ten years, can get a normal 30 year mortgage and house prices average at 3% annually You could get a mortgage at 3.8% so your monthly payment would be $560 a month. $60 a month difference over 10 year is $7200 Because you are paying down on a conventional mortgage you would owe 93500 after 10 years. On top of that the house would have appreciated by $47000. You would have to give you parents $35500 of that. So by avoiding a normal loan it's costing you an extra $49000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5458761578243e99a8d1fbc443fda66", "text": "\"If I understand you situation correctly, then the accepted answer is extremely misleading and incorrect. Your arrangement with your parents is definitely unreasonable. It is definitely not \"\"similar to an interest-only loan\"\". In an interest-only loan, like you can get from a bank, you will loan a sum of money, which you are expected to pay back at a certain time in the future, or when you sell the condo. But you pay back the original sum, not the value of property at selling time. For the access to the money you pay an interest to the bank. The bank gets their profits from the interest. The property only serves as collateral in case you are not able to make your interest payments. Another way to view it, is that your parent bought (a share of) your condo for investment reasons. In that case, they would expect to get their profits from the increase of the value of the property over time. That looks most like your situation. Granted, that is more risky for them, but that is what they choose to sign up for. But in that case it is not reasonable to charge your for interest as well, because that would mean they would get double profits. So how does the $500 monthly payment fit in? If it is interest, then it would work out to a yearly interest of about 5.2%. Where I live, that would nowadays be extremely high even for an interest-only mortgage from a bank. But I don't live in the USA, so don't know whether that is true there. I think in your situation, the $500 can only be seen as rent. Whether that is reasonable for your situation I cannot judge from here. It should be 75% of a reasonable rent for a condo like that. But in that case, your parents should also stand for 75% of the maintenance costs of the property, which you don't mention, and most of the property taxes and insurance fees. In short, no it is not a reasonable arrangement. You would be better of trying to get a morgage from the bank, and buy out your parents with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd964919242733ee2f1d5ba9a57246a", "text": "Yes, you are getting shafted. In the end, you will have paid the full price of the condo, but still own only 25% of it. Your parents' stake in the home should decrease as you repay the loan. The way it is now, they're getting 75% of your condo for free!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4085e15956788a64a0c6728c0e53c75b", "text": "Talk to your parents, and find out if you are reducing the debt or not. Find buyers, sell the place now and get out the deal. Of course you will have to wait to get a good price on it. Short term you haven't lost that much, but long term you will. Take your 25%, and use it as a down payment on a regular bank mortgage. Lesson learned move on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd883cb6301d3243b1424967e90752c7", "text": "First, I don't think your parents are ripping you off, but you should get your agreement in writing. The fact that you never own more than 25% doesn't matter. If the condo's value is increasing, you are in fact building equity. Your share of the equity just doesn't increase, but it doesn't decrease either. For example, if the condo is worth $300,000 now, you have $75,000 in equity. Of course if the value is decreasing, so is your equity. If you are paying $500/month in interest (as OP clarified above), and you don't have a written agreement, you are probably unable to claim that payment as mortgage interest if you itemize your deductions on U.S. federal or state tax returns, thus you may be losing out on a legal tax deduction (assuming you earn enough to itemize). They will need to give you each year the proper IRS form for mortgage interest (Form 1098). And, they have to claim the $500/month as interest income on their tax returns. Having a written and signed contract eliminates confusion and potential for heartbreaking misunderstanding the future--and it sounds like you are already experiencing some doubt and confusion now. Your rate seems within market rates for an interest-only loan. Let's say you wanted to buy out your parents' share of the condo right now. Would you pay $115,000 or would you have to get an appraisal to find out what the condo is worth now? If you can't answer that question, you need to get that in writing so that you won't have an argument over it someday. If the condo has appreciated significantly and all you have to pay is the $115,000, then that's a sweet deal for you, because you'd be buying out a much more valuable property for much less than it's worth. If that is the agreement, and the property is appreciating (no guarantee, especially with condos), then you are essentially building equity. If the property is declining in value and you do wish to sell it, then you won't have to pay $115,000; they'll just end up with their 75% share, which will be less than the $115K they invested. Both of you would lose some of your investment, but you would have had all the benefits of living in a nice condo all those years and they wouldn't. They are definitely taking more risk than you are. Second, if you had $40,000 cash saved up, your parents probably raised you with some good financial sense and work ethic, so I'm optimistic they have good intentions for your future. Operate from that frame of mind when you go to ask for a written agreement. Next, read up about Equity Share Agreements. There are many models that will help inform your decisions. But, you should engage a real estate lawyer to help you draw up a fair agreement for both parties. I was in an equity share agreement for my first townhouse. It's a common practice, and it won't cost all that much to get one created. It's worth the money to get it done properly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81e342c136e42889bfda2dc7f69297bf", "text": "No It's not a loan. It's an equity investment. Think of it as a business. The parents bought 75% of the equity with $115K, and are entitled to 75% of the sale proceeds, should you someday liquidate the business (i.e. selling the house). The $500 per month is just business revenue and is paid to your parents as a dividend. Imagine you rent it out to your self and charge a $666.66 rent - you take 25% of that back and give your parents the rest. Like any equity investment, the risk for them is that if the value of the house goes down, they will have to shoulder the loss. And you are right, there is no way to build equity. You already sold that to your parents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35730bf047c7562526d1b631eba05dc7", "text": "Actually if you look at a loan for $115,000 over 30 years at current interest rates you would have a payment of about $500 a month. I would argue your $500 monthly payments are building equity the same way a loan repayment schedule would. Is your agreement in writing? If it is, there's nothing you can do unless they agree. If it's not then write up a contract for a $115k loan that you will pay back over 30 years at $500 a month with the amortization table. That will show how much equity you're building over time. (It's not much the first 10 years!) Note that some states require real estate contract to be in writing or else they are voidable by either party. Whatever you do, get something in writing or you'll probably either end up in court or feeling bitter for the next few decades.", "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": "4052d02b9a2b396dffce36705c050f28", "text": "\"Basically, you have purchased 25% of the condo for $40,000, and your parents bought 75% of the condo for another $115,000. We imagine for a moment that it wasn't you who lived in the condo, but some unrelated person paying rent. You are paying $7,500 a year for tax and fees, plus $6,000 a year, so there is $13,500 leaving your wallet. If $15,500 a year was a reasonable rent, then the tax and fee would be paid out of that, there would be $8,000 left, of which you would get 25% = $2,000. If you were officially \"\"renting\"\" it, you would pay $15,500 a year, and get $2,000 back, again $13,500 leaving your wallet. So you are in exact the same situation financially as you would be if you paid $15,500 rent. Question: Is $15,500 a year or $1,290 a month an appropriate rent for your condo? If a neighbour is renting his condo, is he or she paying $1,290 or more or less? Could you rent the same place for the same money? If $1,290 is the correct rent then you are fine. If the rent should be lower, then you are overpaying. If the rent should be higher, then you are making money. Keep in mind that you will also be winning if rents go up in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e20815108d96a681b1d185affe33267f", "text": "Are you in the United States? Is there some sort of written agreement that the money your parents paid into the house is a loan that will be paid back? I assume the deed to the home is in your name, and your parents do not have a lien on the property in any way? In the United States provided there is no lien and your parents are not also on the mortgage, that home is 100% yours. Now I would argue you still owe your parents money, but absent some sort of contract it sounds like an interest free loan that you'll pay back at a rate of 500$/month. Your parents could attempt to sue you and if this happens I recommend you find a real estate attorney. It's unlikely that they would win the case since there's no paperwork and even if there was it is unlikely to hold up since it so strongly favors them ( your parents ). Now if your parents are listed on the mortgage or somehow have a lien on the house, you have a bigger issue as they technically own (or at least have an interest in) part of the property and when you decide to sell the house you would have to involve them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aaa391cfed23a79f97d9a55fbf024542", "text": "yes and no its definitely not charitable as they are making money of off you but depending on the outside conditions if you had to pay a mortgage on that condo with only 35k in payments to start off it would more than likely exceed 500 dollars a month however there would always be a point were the mortgage would end and it dosent sound like thats going to be the case with you paying your parents so it depends on how long your going to have that condo and how much mortgage would have been.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f885cc8f91910d91bfc3cdd536be6efb", "text": "I would go see a Lawyer no matter what. It's a form of a scam your parents are doing. Make sure it's YOUR name only on the title of the building if it is, then you have a MAJOR case against them. This is a form of Equity scam, in where you aren't really going to make hardly any money. Once you pay them that money towards the loan legally their stake needs to decrease according to what you said. ABSOLUTELY CONSULT A LAWYER!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba8df4dad5de33163286a919442bf9d4", "text": "You're paying 5.2% 'interest' on the $115K (500 * 12 / 115,000) * 100 but the amount you pay back is not $115K but 75% of the property value at sale. Is that right? A mortgage would have cost about half that rate and the balloon payment would have been fixed - you would pay back $115K at maturity plus you could have sold it whenever you liked As Gnasher729 said, if you consider it to be rent then the situation looks different but the point of buying a house is to avoid paying 'useless' rent, build equity and hopefully make a capital gain I'd speak to a lawyer & possibly an accountant (regarding the numbers)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4726bb0f4ed88e4b2dd8b8e604bcb76", "text": "It depends on the selling price, but if we can assume the property will be sold at a profit, they are getting a pretty sweet deal at your expense. They are both getting about 5.2% interest on their money, plus the lion's share of any property appreciation. I would say that fair would be either of:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c36be7dadeacd4e48979890060af57f0", "text": "You are being ripped off on several counts. 1) 40k is 26% not 25%. 2) Why should you pay them $500 rent? they bought a share of the property, they should fund it if they intend to keep 75% 3) Why do you need to pay them for the 75%? why dont they need to pay you for the 25%? You are better off getting a loan for the 75% and going solo so you get to buy equity.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "29ff7c80b140ea58f487d1568da3d1c7", "text": "It seems a bit late in the process, no? They moved in, you are elsewhere, etc. Today, the Prime Rate is 3.25%. I don't know enough to suggest whether this is fair to both parties. It's more than you'd earn in the bank, and less than they'd pay for a business loan. My own equity line is currently 2.5%, for what that's worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79d2ca0681ec20663320a4dee527ced1", "text": "It could be a couple of things besides extra principal: I seem to remember hearing that some (shady?) lenders would just pocket extra payments if you didn't specify where they were headed, but I've also been told that this just isn't true.", "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": "ceec0eac45ca45706137bdbd5fccca9c", "text": "I believe you may be missing the point here. It appears(and they don't really verify this) that before BofA took over the loan, the homeowners were not using an escrow account. I know this is possible because i had the option of using one or not when i bought my house. So it seems that once BofA took over they automatically created an escrow account and when the normal payments the homeowners were making didn't cover the total monthly balance, they took it out of the payment specifically for the mortgage. So, according to THIS story, its not sensational bullshit. This would be the bank creating an issue. That is, according to the facts that are presented in the article, which may not be the whole story.... Edit- spelling & grammar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3befbb389bfa24fb7a4ab586ee947b5", "text": "\"Real Estate has historically been the most sound investment of all times. Not only does property consistant increase in value (which is what you want every investment to do), it does so at the highest rate with the lowest risk. Most return on investment (like a stock in the market) the potential rate of gain is proportionat to the potential loss. The more secure an investment, the lower the potential gain. But, with Real Estate, property typically doubles in value every 10 years. Our overall R.E. economy is on an upward turn, recovering from a time where values tanked. to jump in now, is probably better than waiting for any amount of time, be it 1 month, or 1 year. You concern about being \"\"tied in\"\" to this investment is a valid concern, however, since the market is in an upward turn, you should be more and more able to turn around and sell it later on. The best thing that you could potentially do would be to invest in a rental property where your cost of investment (your mortgage note) is paid by the renters. However, being a landlord is always a risky business (hence, the higher rate of return, which considering your investment is ultimately zero, the return rate is huge :-) The trick would be to take the reters payments to you and keep it in an account that you use to pay for any repairs, upgrades, or marketing in between when the unit is vacant. But, with your parents losing their house, this may not be possible - unless you take their home and then keep the living arrangments the same as they are now. One possibility to help you get your foot in the door of being a property owner (not necessarily \"\"investor\"\") and help your parents keep their house (if that is what they would like to do) is re-finance with them... if you can't afford the entire mortgage, but they are capable of filling the gap between what you can afford and what their property costs, then you become partnered with them, and when/if their circumstances change, they can always buy you out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e", "text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a", "text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73a1ac0732a8ea4eda8102457e94cdf7", "text": "\"Your dad may have paid an \"\"opportunity cost\"\" for that outright purchase. If the money he saved had been invested elsewhere, he may have made more money. If he was that well off, then his interest rate should have been the lowest possible. My own father is a multi-millionaire (not myself) and he could afford to have paid for his house outright. He didn't though. To do so would have meant cashing in on several investments. I don't know his interest rate but let's say it was 2.5%. If he invests that million dollars into something he expects to get a 7% return on in the same period, then he would make more money by borrowing the money. Hence, he would be paying an opportunity cost. Assuming you need to work, some jobs will also do background or credit checks. Credit cards can be used by well off people to actually make them money by offering rewards (compared to straight cash transactions). The better your credit history, the better the cards/rewards you can get. You can build that credit history better by having these loans and making timely payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c8b73d5026f1e9bb5aa37158a80c2bf", "text": "\"You are asking about a common, simple practice of holding the mortgage when selling a house you own outright. Typically called seller financing. Say I am 70 and wish to downsize. The money I sell my house for will likely be in the bank at today's awful rates. Now, a buyer likes my house, and has 20% down, but due to some medical bills for his deceased wife, he and his new wife are struggling to get financing. I offer to let them pay me as if I were the bank. We agree on the rate, I have a lien on the house just as a bank would, and my mortgage with them requires the usual fire, theft, vandalism insurance. When I die, my heirs will get the income, or the buyer can pay in full after I'm gone. In response to comment \"\"how do you do that? What's the paperwork?\"\" Fellow member @littleadv has often posted \"\"You need to hire a professional.\"\" Not because the top members here can't offer great, accurate advice. But because a small mistake on the part of the DIY attempt can be far more costly than the relative cost of a pro. In real estate (where I am an agent) you can skip the agent to hook up buyer/seller, but always use the pro for legal work, in this case a real estate attorney. I'd personally avoid the general family lawyer, going with the specialist here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4224baa1404950971eeb2d436c65719a", "text": "\"The first issue you'll find is that if you aren't going to immediately live in the house as a primary residence, this property counts as a \"\"second home\"\" or \"\"investment property\"\". You'll generally pay a higher interest rate, have a larger down payment, and qualify for less government-backed programs/incentives/subsidies than you would otherwise. The lending criteria on such properties is always more strict - and generally more costly - than an equivalent primary residence. Lenders won't really care that in 10 years you or your parents plan to move in - you can't be held to that, so they'll generally ignore that plan entirely. On a related note, you should be aware that insurance for the property will also generally cost more, but you'd need to get quotes to determine if that is at all significant in your situation. You'll need to talk with a few potential lenders, but from a first read it sounds like it would be best \"\"storied\"\" like so: you and your parents want to buy a 2nd home or vacation home, which you'll share the use of (vacations, etc, and being converted to a primary residence later). It'll need to be clear what plan to use the property for - if you intend to rent out the home in the interim years then instead make that clear and state it will be an investment home; if it is what you are planning it might make it easier, as expected rent for the property will be considered. Saying you want a mortgage for a home no one will live in for a decade probably isn't a good idea, as a general plan anyway. Either way, this can be called a \"\"joint mortgage\"\". When I was a loan officer we didn't use that term, but it's basically just a mortgage application with multiple people on it, all of whom are combined together to qualify for the loan. Everyone's income, debts, assets, and credit get included, which can work or one person's situation can cause the whole thing to collapse. From your description I think this could work for you, and one option is to set it up where only one of the parents is on the application if the other parent has problematic credit situation. Note that his possibility is often restricted by local law, so it may not be an option for you in your jurisdiction, but worth being aware of. An alternative is you just buy the property and the parents gift you the down payment, and you list them as beneficiaries in will/trust in case something happens to you before they retire, but I don't know if that would make any sense in your situation. This is a single applicant mortgage, and it means only you are considered as buying it, which sometimes is the only option depending on your parents current financial situation. It's usually something you try if the other option doesn't work, but it's a fallback plan. Some lenders will allow guarantors (co-signers in US parlance), but this will vary by lender and locale - often what they actually want is a joint mortgage, not really a guarantor/cosigner. Finally, you'll need to plan for what happens if things don't go as planned, regardless of what happens. What if your income changes, if either of your parents become deceased in advance of retirement, if they get a divorced from each other, or if either/both become ill or disabled and need assisted care? Planning for such unpleasant possibilities (even if they seem crazy and not going to happen in your mind right now) can save you all a tremendous amount of heart ache later on when the unexpected (including things I didn't mention) pops up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000b3d3ea91278770cbb20cd4af0ced", "text": "What you're describing is called timing the market. That is, if you correctly predict when the market will drop, you can sell before the drop, wait for the drop, then buy after the drop has occurred. Sell high, buy low. The fundamental problem with that, though, is: What ends up happening, on average, is you end up slightly behind. There's quite a lot of literature on this; see Betterment's explanation for example. Forbes (click through ad first) also has a detailed piece on the matter. Now, we're not really talking HFT issues here; and there are some structural things that some argue you can take advantage of (restrictions on some organizational investors, for example, similar to a blackjack dealer who has to hit on 16). However, everyone else knows about these too - so it's hard to gain much of an edge. Plenty of people say they can time the market right, and even yourself perhaps you timed a particular drop accurately. This tends to lead to false confidence though; how many drops that you timed badly do you remember? Ultimately, most investors end up slightly down when they attempt to time the market, because of the transaction costs (if you guess two drops, one 'right' and one 'wrong', and they have exactly opposite gains/losses before commissions, you will lose a bit on each due to commission), and because of the overall upward trend in the market (ie, if you picked at random one month a year to be out of the market, you'd lose around 10% annualized gains from doing that; same applies here). All of that aside, there is one major caveat: risk tolerance. If you are highly risk tolerant, say a 30 year old investing your 401(k), then you should stay in no matter what. If you're not - say you're 58 and retiring in a few years - then knowledge that there's a higher risk time period coming up might suggest moving to a less risky portfolio, even at the known cost of some gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972fa7231ce44ecafa6849051bacb000", "text": "First--congratulations! I certainly wish I could create something worth buying for $1.4 million. In addition to what @duffbeer703 recommended, consider putting some of the money in Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS). I second the advice on staying away from annuities as well. @littleadv is right about certified financial planners. A good one will put those funds in a mix of investments that minimize your potential tax exposure. They will also look at whether you're properly insured. Research what is FDIC-insured (and what isn't) here. Since you're still making a six-figure income in your salaried job, be sure not to neglect things like contributing to your 401(k)--especially if it's a matching one. At your salary level, I think you're still eligible to contribute to a Roth IRA (taxable income goes in, so withdrawals are tax-free). A good adviser will know which options are best.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7e2700c8f97122b868a4a0ebfbcc9257", "text": "Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8", "text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3200217e7939b7c9eb0a82e4a1124feb", "text": "Here is the technical guidance from the accounting standard FRS 23 (IAS 21) 'The Effects of Changes in Foreign Exchange Rates' which states: Exchange differences arising on the settlement of monetary items or on translating monetary items at rates different from those at which they were translated on initial recognition during the period or in previous financial statements shall be recognised in profit or loss in the period in which they arise. An example: You agree to sell a product for $100 to a customer at a certain date. You would record the sale of this product on that date at $100, converted at the current FX rate (lets say £1:$1 for ease) in your profit loss account as £100. The customer then pays you several $100 days later, at which point the FX rate has fallen to £0.5:$1 and you only receive £50. You would then have a realised loss of £50 due to exchange differences, and this is charged to your profit and loss account as a cost. Due to double entry bookkeeping the profit/loss on the FX difference is needed to balance the journals of the transaction. I think there is a little confusion as to what constitutes a (realised) profit/loss on exchange difference. In the example in your question, you are not making any loss when you convert the bitcoins to dollars, as there is no difference in the exchange rate between the point you convert them. Therefore you have not made either a profit or a loss. In terms of how this effects your tax position; you only pay tax on your profit and loss account. The example I give above is an instance where an exchange difference is recorded to the P&L. In your example, the value of your cash held is reflected in your balance sheet, as an asset, whatever its value is at the balance sheet date. Unfortunately, the value of the asset can rise/fall, but the only time where you will record a profit/loss on this (and therefore have an impact on tax) is if you sell the asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087", "text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f0da2c0e5a4bfa04bda19efad7eb01", "text": "There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90b990119812669ab920916a9ac08514", "text": "\"When you invest in an S&P500 index fund that is priced in USD, the only major risk you bear is the risk associated with the equity that comprises the index, since both the equities and the index fund are priced in USD. The fund in your question, however, is priced in EUR. For a fund like this to match the performance of the S&P500, which is priced in USD, as closely as possible, it needs to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. If the fund simply converted EUR to USD then invested in an S&P500 index fund priced in USD, the EUR-priced fund may fail to match the USD-priced fund because of exchange rate fluctuations. Here is a simple example demonstrating why hedging is necessary. I assumed the current value of the USD-priced S&P500 index fund is 1,600 USD/share. The exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR. If you purchase one share of this index using EUR, you would pay 1230.77 EUR/share: If the S&P500 increases 10% to 1760 USD/share and the exchange rate remains unchanged, the value of the your investment in the EUR fund also increases by 10% (both sides of the equation are multiplied by 1.1): However, the currency risk comes into play when the EUR/USD exchange rate changes. Take the 10% increase in the price of the USD index occurring in tandem with an appreciation of the EUR to 1.4 USD/EUR: Although the USD-priced index gained 10%, the appreciation of the EUR means that the EUR value of your investment is almost unchanged from the first equation. For investments priced in EUR that invest in securities priced in USD, the presence of this additional currency risk mandates the use of a hedge if the indexes are going to track. The fund you linked to uses swap contracts, which I discuss in detail below, to hedge against fluctuations in the EUR/USD exchange rate. Since these derivatives aren't free, the cost of the hedge is included in the expenses of the fund and may result in differences between the S&P500 Index and the S&P 500 Euro Hedged Index. Also, it's important to realize that any time you invest in securities that are priced in a different currency than your own, you take on currency risk whether or not the investments aim to track indexes. This holds true even for securities that trade on an exchange in your local currency, like ADR's or GDR's. I wrote an answer that goes through a simple example in a similar fashion to the one above in that context, so you can read that for more information on currency risk in that context. There are several ways to investors, be they institutional or individual, can hedge against currency risk. iShares offers an ETF that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index and uses a over-the-counter currency swap contract called a month forward FX contract to hedge against the associated currency risk. In these contracts, two parties agree to swap some amount of one currency for another amount of another currency, at some time in the future. This allows both parties to effectively lock in an exchange rate for a given time period (a month in the case of the iShares ETF) and therefore protect themselves against exchange rate fluctuations in that period. There are other forms of currency swaps, equity swaps, etc. that could be used to hedge against currency risk. In general, two parties agree to swap one quantity, like a EUR cash flow, payments of a fixed interest rate, etc. for another quantity, like a USD cash flow, payments based on a floating interest rate, etc. In many cases these are over-the-counter transactions, there isn't necessarily a standardized definition. For example, if the European manager of a fund that tracks the S&P500 Euro Hedged Index is holding euros and wants to lock in an effective exchange rate of 1.4 USD/EUR (above the current exchange rate), he may find another party that is holding USD and wants to lock in the respective exchange rate of 0.71 EUR/USD. The other party could be an American fund manager that manages a USD-price fund that tracks the FTSE. By swapping USD and EUR, both parties can, at a price, lock in their desired exchange rates. I want to clear up something else in your question too. It's not correct that the \"\"S&P 500 is completely unrelated to the Euro.\"\" Far from it. There are many cases in which the EUR/USD exchange rate and the level of the S&P500 index could be related. For example: Troublesome economic news in Europe could cause the euro to depreciate against the dollar as European investors flee to safety, e.g. invest in Treasury bills. However, this economic news could also cause US investors to feel that the global economy won't recover as soon as hoped, which could affect the S&P500. If the euro appreciated against the dollar, for whatever reason, this could increase profits for US businesses that earn part of their profits in Europe. If a US company earns 1 million EUR and the exchange rate is 1.3 USD/EUR, the company earns 1.3 million USD. If the euro appreciates against the dollar to 1.4 USD/EUR in the next quarter and the company still earns 1 million EUR, they now earn 1.4 million USD. Even without additional sales, the US company earned a higher USD profit, which is reflected on their financial statements and could increase their share price (thus affecting the S&P500). Combining examples 1 and 2, if a US company earns some of its profits in Europe and a recession hits in the EU, two things could happen simultaneously. A) The company's sales decline as European consumers scale back their spending, and B) the euro depreciates against the dollar as European investors sell euros and invest in safer securities denominated in other currencies (USD or not). The company suffers a loss in profits both from decreased sales and the depreciation of the EUR. There are many more factors that could lead to correlation between the euro and the S&P500, or more generally, the European and American economies. The balance of trade, investor and consumer confidence, exposure of banks in one region to sovereign debt in another, the spread of asset/mortgage-backed securities from US financial firms to European banks, companies, municipalities, etc. all play a role. One example of this last point comes from this article, which includes an interesting line: Among the victims of America’s subprime crisis are eight municipalities in Norway, which lost a total of $125 million through subprime mortgage-related investments. Long story short, these municipalities had mortgage-backed securities in their investment portfolios that were derived from, far down the line, subprime mortgages on US homes. I don't know the specific cities, but it really demonstrates how interconnected the world's economies are when an American family's payment on their subprime mortgage in, say, Chicago, can end up backing a derivative investment in the investment portfolio of, say, Hammerfest, Norway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d0b360de7d5745d006ae345e6072492", "text": "The value of the asset doesn't change just because of the exchange rate change. If a thing (valued in USD) costs USD $1 and USD $1 = CAN $1 (so the thing is also valued CAN $1) today and tomorrow CAN $1 worth USD $0.5 - the thing will continue being worth USD $1. If the thing is valued in CAN $, after the exchange rate change, the thing will be worth USD $2, but will still be valued CAN $1. What you're talking about is price quotes, not value. Price quotes will very quickly reach the value, since any deviation will be used by the traders to make profits on arbitrage. And algo-traders will make it happen much quicker than you can even notice the arbitrage existence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c7b4c73d0cfa05f6db8ec14315332e2", "text": "Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83d9ae6ad60870a09c431cbe4c9498a1", "text": "\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f", "text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e63ae5bc64b1b6708549f389a6c615", "text": "International exchange rates are arbitraged. If I exchange A for B for C and then back to A again, I'll end up with the same amount ex trade fees. Assume this isn't the case. Clearly if I'd gain, someone else loses and I'd make millions by rapidly exchanging. Now assume that I'd lose money on that route. That must be because the reverse route, A->C->B->A gains money. (Again, assuming no fees) So in this case you'd just look at fees. (And as Ganesh points out, that may include future fees)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef", "text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5", "text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac0ce3b2e0c026f80b68a29b373f2481", "text": "Any time you are optimizing a portfolio, the right horizon to use for computing the statistics you will use for optimization (expected return, covariance, etc.) will be the same as your rebalance/trading frequency. If you expect your trading strategy to trade once a day, you should use daily data for optimization. Ditto for monthly or quarterly. If at all possible you should use statistics across the board that are computed at the same frequency as your trading. Regarding currency pricing, I see no reason you can't take the reported prices and convert them to whatever currency you want using that day's foriegn exchange rate. Foreign exchange rates are available for free at the Fed and elsewhere. Converting prices from one currency to another is not rocket science. Since you are contemplating putting actual money behind this, note that using data to compute statistics is less reliable for lower statistical moments. The mean (expected return) is the first moment, so using historical returns is extremely unreliable at predicting future returns. The variances and covariances are second moments, they are better. Skewness and kurtosis, yet better. The fact that the expected return can't reliably be estimated from past returns is the major downfall of the Markowitz method (resulting portfolios are often very crazy and will depend critically on the data period you use to set them up). There are approaches to fixing this, such as Black-Litterman's (1992) method, but they get complicated fast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8a85fd74968db82a68d08b94722c7d6", "text": "There are short-term and long term aspects. In the long term, if you live and work in Australia and plan to continue doing both indefinitely, you might as well move all your cash investments there. There would be no point bearing the exchange rate risks. It may be worth keeping the account open with just enough credit to stop it being shut down. There is no point needing to (think about) filing foreign tax returns just because you have an account earning a small amount of interest. In the short term, I think the more important question is practicality rather than exchange rate risk. You want to have enough cash in both countries that if you suddenly have to pay say an apartment deposit or a bill, you won't be caught short. So I would leave at least a few thousands dollars in a US bank account until at least a couple of months after the move, when I was sure everything was settled. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132", "text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "69386b7437581a5abdd8645b54d608be", "text": "\"What was the true reason they wanted to use my accounts for? We wouldn't know the true reason. The scammer can do multiple things. What exactly he would do in your case ... I am very eager to know what a person was up to who would give to me so much information about themselves. I know some of you will jump on the chance to yell \"\"it was not their true address\"\", but.... it is where they wanted me to send the cards to. And I was to give proof of my identification ie; a copy of my drivers license, my articles of incorporation and the real estate development project prospectus. Also they were only willing to work with certain banks ie; Citibank, Bank of America etc. I can not understand what they were doing wanting such access to accounts that had no money in them save the amount I used to open them with. It looks more like they would open accounts under your name, but they would be controlling the accounts. i.e. what goes in and out. i.e. they would be able to deposit and withdraw from a new account they set-up. They would want to use this account for illegal activities, so that if caught, the account opening paper trail leads to you. Even if they gave you an address, it could be rental. Like they have copies of your Company registration and ID proofs, they can use these to get another rental property ... and then send letters to some and ask them to met there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c35b1396f4e0fd04e0bd3fc58ed4ad64", "text": "If they have your account numbers (which are necessary for direct deposits) they could possibly initiate ACH withdrawals from your accounts too (requires some setup but they may have accomplices). Note that even if you didn't have money there, depending on the local bank rules you may be still on the hook for overdrafts they create, at least by default. You may be able to prove later that this was fraud but the burden of proof will be on you, and in the meantime they might be gone with the money. They could use your documents to either establish other accounts in your name (identity theft) or take over your accounts (e.g. by contacting customer service of the bank and claiming to be you, and presenting the documents you sent as a proof), request credits under your identity (possibly using the money on the account as a collateral since the bank may not know where the money is from), etc. This is even easier given you will give them all the documents and information needed for a loan, your signature, etc. And the fact that they ask you to send documents to a specific address doesn't mean they could be found at that address when the problems start - it may be rented short-term, belong to either knowing or unknowing accomplice, be a forwarding service, etc. Could be money laundering of course too. That's just what comes to mind after a short while thinking about it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "56a97c40c97da11fcdc1e59da7c53531", "text": "I'd imagine it is the same for an adult. The money probably gets withdrawn and that's it. However, if the scammer were to go to a branch in person, I'd imagine there would need to be some sort of photo identification to withdraw money. If it were online, then the scammer would also need the account holder's username and password. Either way, chances are that once the money is gone, it's gone - unless the scammer can be found. Even then, the scammer might not have that money anymore.", "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": "d040cf2951facd059b0dfda761f6d2ef", "text": "Ok, few things to understand first: Secondly, think about the way a scam usually flows. A person (scammer) with an actual bank account with money issues a valid cashiers check, trick someone else (victim) into receiving it (typically in exchange for a percent) and passing along a portion to another account (back to the scammer). The scammer then reports the first transaction as fraudulent and the bank takes back that transaction. Now the victim is stuck with the second transaction, and without the funds from the first. Meanwhile the scammer has both the original funds and the percentage from the second one. In a way they're attractive for scammers because they're so trusted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f504ec4770251af8ae3520601a718ca", "text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5c96d25cabfb16b086f42e029b0ba1a", "text": "\"Not entirely. For a creditor to go after the \"\"parent company\"\" in one of these cases requires the courts to be willing to \"\"pierce the corporate veil\"\" (in legal parlance). Typically this is only done if the parent company set up the wholly-owned-subsidiary in order to perpetrate a fraud. In this case, the subsidiary has a totally legitimate function - to sequester risk. While you're right that the parent company may have to offer some form of credit guarantees to get the subsidiary to get a loan, often those guarantees still don't create nearly as much exposure for the parent company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2168ffb1dea037ef5b248f1c0643ab7f", "text": "Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55424864462f469b1beffbe1d39f8ba0", "text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fdd980e522d31d4f953d8107555fd7a", "text": "\"Some of it is very simple but almost all of it is very non-intuitive. Imagine that Donald Trump owns a lot of property that is valued at $1bn. So he puts that up as collateral to buy some gold worth $2bn dollars. A little while later the banks discover that the properties are only worth $100mm. In this case $900mm has suddenly disappeared and moreover the banks are in deep shit because the Donald owes them $2bn and has posted collateral worth $100mm. When they try to rough up Donald he tells them that instead if they go along with his ponzi scheme they might be able to sell his new $2bn property to someone else for $4bn, this way the banks will get their money bank and Donald will make a nice little profit. So the banks lend him some more money. This scheme only works until people start refusing to buy these properties at Donald's prices. This is a nutshell what has happened. Property prices were much higher than they should have been and Banks had derivatives which weren't worth as much as they claimed. When the market/people wised up to this fact the prices came crashing down and money \"\"disappeared\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4aa10b157076a2d41f8f8ec9de3d2c1", "text": "\"The \"\"just accounting\"\" is how money market works these days. Lets look at this simplified example: The bank creates an asset - loan in the amount of X, secured by a house worth 1.25*X (assuming 20% downpayment). The bank also creates a liability in the amount of X to its depositors, because the money lent was the money first deposited into the bank by someone else (or borrowed by the bank from the Federal Reserve(*), which is, again, a liability). That liability is not secured. Now the person defaults on the loan in the amount of X, but at that time the prices dropped, and the house is now worth 0.8*X. The bank forecloses, sells the house, recovers 80% of the loan, and removes the asset of the loan, creating an asset of cash in the value of 0.8*X. But the liability in the amount of X didn't go anywhere. Bank still has to repay the X amount of money back to its depositors/Feds. The difference? 20% of X in our scenario - that's the bank's loss. (*) Federal Reserve is the US equivalent of a central bank.\"", "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": "13579414bd19097f500ef210e2dfd057", "text": "\"(Disclosure - PeerStreet was at FinCon, a financial blogger conference I attended last month. I had the chance to briefly meet a couple people from this company. Also, I recognize a number of the names of their financial backers. This doesn't guarantee anything, of course, except the people behind the scenes are no slackers.) The same way Prosper and Lending Club have created a market for personal loans, this is a company that offers real estate loans. The \"\"too good to be true\"\" aspect is what I'll try to address. I've disclosed in other answers that I have my Real Estate license. Earlier this year, I sold a house that was financed with a \"\"Hard Money\"\" loan. Not a bank, but a group of investors. They charged the buyer 10%. Let me state - I represented the seller, and when I found out the terms of the loan, it would have been a breach of my own moral and legal responsibility to her to do anything to kill the deal. I felt sick for days after that sale. There are many people with little credit history who are hard workers and have saved their 20% down. For PeerStreet, 25%. The same way there's a business, local to my area, that offered a 10% loan, PeerStreet is doing something similar but in a 'crowd sourced' way. It seems to me that since they show the duration as only 6-24 months, the buyer typically manages to refinance during that time. I'm guessing that these may be people who are selling their house, but have bad timing, i.e. they need to first close on the sale to qualify to buy the new home. Or simply need the time to get their regular loan approved. (As a final side note - I recalled the 10% story in a social setting, and more than one person responded they'd have been happy to invest their money at 6%. I could have saved the buyer 4% and gotten someone else nearly 6% more than they get on their cash.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "842bd5665f06182cd5f9685bd0f398cb", "text": "\"They're taking advantage of float. Like so many things in the financial world today, this practice is a (strictly legal) fraud. When you make the transaction, the money is available immediately, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious to anyone who's ever used PayPal. It doesn't take 3 minutes for the broker to get that money, let alone 3 days. But if they can hold on to that money instead of turning it over to you, they can make money from it for themselves, putting money that rightfully belongs to you to work for them instead, earning interest on short-term loans, money market accounts, etc. The SEC mandates that this money must be turned over to you within 3 days so it should not surprise anyone that that's exactly how long the \"\"we have to wait for it to clear\"\" scam runs for. Even if it doesn't seem like very much money per transaction, for a large brokerage with hundreds of thousands of clients, all the little bits add up very quickly. This is why they feel no need to compete by offering better service: offering poor service is making them a lot of money that they would lose by offering better service.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ecf361875bddae8e68e43c43660b57", "text": "\"Because the value of distressed assets is close to what they are selling for. When you lend money, you know there is a risk of default. You gamble on that risk, and you take the responsibility if you lose because the person taking the money can't pay. People who buy distressed debt on the idea that they can make more money off of it are only able to do that in two ways: not giving a shit what the impacts of wringing more money out create, figuring out a legal way to make someone else pay for it through ripple blackmail effects (other people also are impacted when a country can't function.) If you back Klarman, you may say the point is you are \"\"teaching\"\" Puerto Rico and everyone else that they shouldn't take on debt they can't afford. But when has that ever worked? The pensioners who are bankrupt are the ones actually getting the pain of the lesson. Another lesson could be to investors not to lend to people who can't pay them back. The people lending the money are the ones who now don't have it because they made a bad choice. Seth Klarman could also learn a lesson about taking on distressed debt being a non-lucrative pastime. Or we can all learn a lesson that taking on distressed debt is very lucrative. A big change America implemented was getting rid of debtor's prisons. This looks a lot like getting excited about debtor's prison to me. EDIT: I should note I am thinking of the Algerian version of making a ton of money off of distressed national debt. As opposed to making a bit more money off of distressed debt because you were willing to let the collapse figure itself out. Though I'm not so sure about that either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b34f6fbabd9543cde3cfab87b7ebd92", "text": "I know this is broad, but this isn't a scam -- it's a workshop/educational thing about teaching people of investing in the real estate market, and how to profit The scam is that the free or cheap class doesn't give you enough info to make money; so they sell you a more advanced and expensive class that gets you almost enough info; but the goal of the 2nd class is to get you to pay for the specialized seminar and coaching sessions that either fail to materialize or are so basic they aren't worth the money.", "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": "bcb9eaeafb6185e76ad564d565950eaf", "text": "Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f41de11d824efa4667643c97a48c8da7", "text": "Healthcare for the employee is more valuable to the employer than is providing healthcare for the rest of the family members. Depending on the family situation, you're going to see significant differences in price between out of pocket costs for insurance of just the employee, vs cost for insuring the entire family. This is because in the first instance the insurance is more subsidized by the company (as a percentage of the total cost). The costs to the company for insuring just the individual (mid-career) are in the neighborhood of $5000 per year. If this is all that's being negotiated (single person coverage) then I would use that amount as a baseline.", "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": "a721eb4ab0265595914c1140f7df4c50", "text": "\"There are two types of insurance, which causes some confusion. Social Security Disability Insurance (which you indicate you have) is insurance you can receive benefit from if you earn enough \"\"work credits\"\" (payroll taxes) prior to your disability onset. It is not a needs-based program. Supplemental Security Income is a need-based program which does not consider your work history. To qualify for this, your total assets need to be lower than some threshold and your family income also below some threshold. If you inherit a home, or money, I doubt this would jeopardize your SSDI qualification, since your qualification was based on a disabling condition and work history. If you inherit an income property, which you manage (i.e. you become a landlord), this may jeopardize your claim that you are unable to work. Even if you are not making an \"\"income\"\" as the landlord, but the work your are performing is deemed to have some \"\"value\"\" this too could jeopardize your claim. All of this can be very complicated, and there are some excellent references on the web including SSA website, and some other related websites. Finally, if you become able to work while on SSDI, your benefit may/will end depending on the level of work you are able to perform. But just because you are able to work again does not mean you need to repay past benefits received (assuming your condition has not been falsified). Your local social security office, or the social security main office both offer telephone support and can also answer questions regarding your concern. Here are a couple relevant links:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ff7148e192db7fe47dfe1f25883aeec", "text": "Another source of insurance can be through the working spouses employment. Some companies do provide free or low cost coverage for spouses without a need for a physical exam. The risk is that it might not be available at the amount you want, and that if the main spouse switches companies it might not be available with the new employer. A plus is that if there is a cost it is only a one year commitment. Term insurance is the way to go. It is simple to purchase, and not complex to understand. Sizing is key. You may need to provide some level of coverage until the youngest child is in high school or college. Of course the youngest child might not have been born yet. The longer the term, the higher the cost to account for the inflation during the period of the insurance. If the term expires, but the need still exists, it is possible to get another policy but the cost of the new term policy will be higher because the insured is older. If there are special needs children involved the amount and length may need to be increased due to the increased costs and duration of need. Don't forget to periodically review the insurance situation to make sure your need haven't changed so much a new level of insurance would be needed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84df1ff5a295b2ef66de394faab2a96a", "text": "\"I was in the health insurance game for 10 years and never heard of this until the Affordable Care Act came about. To my knowledge, there is no rule or regulation prohibiting it, however trying to get an insurer underwrite that risk is extremely unlikely. It's the same reason why you don't see AAA offering health insurance. There isn't a contractual relationship between the church and their constituents, so no underwriter worth their salt would put a reasonable price on that risk. Members can easily come and go, and since insurance through your employer is still the dominant distribution channel for health insurance, it would be seen as an adverse risk, meaning that people who couldn't get it through \"\"normal\"\" channels must be getting it through the church, which it would then be assumed that this person applying for coverage is an \"\"adverse risk\"\" or someone who is abnormally unhealthy. There are faith-based healthcare reimbursement programs that are NOT health insurance and do not satisfy the ACA required minimum coverages. From what I've seen and read, it's basically members of the religion or faith that pay money into the system (like paying an insurance premium) and they elect a board that basically evaluates each claim and pays or doesn't pay it, either partially or in full. While this is a nice way to get your bills paid, odds are it won't cover your $300,000 cancer treatment or your $50,000 cesarean section birth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "423cfcee5cca5f4a79db04d12face219", "text": "Turns out Social Security and disability insurance are two different things but if you take disability insurance before retirement age when you get to full retirement age the disability money becomes the social security money. http://www.ssa.gov/dibplan/dqualify.htm If you are receiving Social Security disability benefits when you reach full retirement age, your disability benefits automatically convert to retirement benefits, but the amount remains the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c5e9a3cf51b5b6aba3b6c982cb940f7", "text": "If you are not open to changing the amount of money you are willing to spend, your options are limited. Why change your amounts and proportions? Your situation changed. You got married, divorced, purchased a new car, the company added free disability coverage. If the amount spent per year can't change, then you are asking how to review if your proportions are correct. The first thing is to look at what must you spend it on. If you have a mortgage or car loan, the bank will tell you the minimum amount. If you own a car the state will tell you the minimum amount for auto coverage. If there is any money left look at life, and disability. These can wreck the life of your dependents. When you have meet those needs, then increase auto and home to cover additional liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b29218638d78e9b10227d3fdda3655af", "text": "\"I am very late to this forum and post - but will just respond that I am a sole proprietor, who was just audited by the IRS for 2009, and this is one of the items that they disallowed. My husband lost his job in 2008, I was unable to get health insurance on my own due to pre-existing ( not) conditions and so we had to stay on the Cobra system. None of the cost was funded by the employer and so I took it as a SE HI deduction on Line 29. It was disallowed and unfortunately, due to AGI limits, I get nothing by taking it on Sch. A. The auditor made it very clear that if the plan was not in my name, or the company's name, I could not take the deduction above the line. In his words, \"\"it's not fair, but it is the law!\"\"\"", "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": "bc143d63cb8050b104d6cce96934297c", "text": "\"In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills \"\"you don't have to pay\"\" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acb0fe6e2fb77240b7fcaafd353a62b", "text": "\"Some of this may depend on how your employer chose to deal with your notice period. Most employers employ you for the duration (which means you'd be covered for March on your insurance). They could 'send you home' but pay you (in which case you're an employee for the duration still); or they could terminate you on your notice day, and give you effectively a severance equal to two weeks' pay. That is what it sounds like they did. They should have made this clear to you when you left (on 2/23). Assuming you work in an at-will state, there's nothing wrong (legally) with them doing it this way, although it is not something I believe is right morally. Basically, they're trying to avoid some costs for your last two weeks (if they employ you through 3/6, they pay for another month of insurance, and some other things). In exchange, you lose some insurance benefits and FSA benefits. Your FSA terminates the day you terminate employment (see this pdf for a good explanation of these issues). This means that the FSA administrator is correct to reject expenses incurred after 2/23. The FSA is in no way tied to your insurance plan; you can have one or the other or both. You still can submit claims for expenses prior to 2/23 during your runout period, which is often 60 or 90 days. In the future, you will want to think ahead when leaving employment, and you may want to time when you give notice carefully to maximize your benefits in the event something like this happens again. It's a shady business practice in my mind (to terminate you when you give notice), but it's not unknown. As far as the HSA/FSA, you aren't eligible to contribute to an HSA in a year you're also in an FSA, except that they use \"\"plan year\"\" in the language (so if your benefits period is 6/1/yy - 5/31/yy, that's the relevant 'year'). I'd be cautious about opening a HSA without advice from a tax professional, or at least a more knowledgeable person here.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a6d9770c858ec9f47d1599c0f8738a", "text": "\"I believe you are confusing \"\"retirement\"\" and \"\"disability\"\". If you become disabled, then yes, the above chart you referenced applies to you. The US government will send you a disability check to assist you with living. This is very different from retirement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89854b2a03b341b24944bb2af2a27fbf", "text": "\"If I read your figures correctly, then the cost difference is negligible. ($1.84 difference) The main determining factor, I'd think, would be the coverage. Do you get more, or less, coverage now than you would if you went together on the same plan? You'd both be covered, but what is the cap? Plans, and employer contributions, change all the time. How is business in both of your companies? Are you likely to get cut? Are you able to get back into a plan at each of your employers if you quit the plan for a while? These rules may be unpleasant surprises if, say, your wife cancels her plan, goes on yours, and you lose your job. She may not be able to get back into her insurance immediately, or possibly not at all. A spouse losing a job isn't a \"\"qualifying life event\"\" the way marriage, birth of a child, divorce, etc., is.\"", "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": "f2bafadcd0846e0c462f6e6c8191488b", "text": "We frequently get whole insurance vs term insurance questions; and most of the answers will support term insurance. We get questions regarding getting insurance before there is a need in case there is a problem getting it later. And for most people it doesn't make sense to over-insure early. You have asked from a slightly different position, you have a more solid reason to be concerned about your health. You don't have a need now, and can't estimate what your need will be, or when it will be. Those numbers you quote may seem high, but when you don't know how many kids you may have, or what you will need to protect against, they may turn out to be inadequate when you do need the insurance. You need to sit down with a fee only financial planner. They can lay out your options today, and as your situation changes. Then as the years go by, have that plan reexamined. The fee only planner will not tell you what company to buy insurance from, or what funds to invest in, but they will help you decide what types of protection and investment you need.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "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": "d253535002bfac9d7d58b0e7474d6d61", "text": "PayPal. Or even Western Union or MoneyGram. Despite their fees, there is a reason those companies are still in business.", "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": "12c783ab58e622f4b75a45d00cc7d18a", "text": "There is a way I discovered of finding the current exchange rate before committing to buy, go to send payments, put in your own second email, pay 1gbp as the amount and it will give you the exchange rate and fees in your own currency, in my case euro, before you have to click on send payment", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffdf27fb9f7077c4a6d7ea0ba512f87f", "text": "Three ideas: PayPal is probably the best/cheapest way to transfer small/medium amounts of money overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28e02a87e6118dfc2685339589467995", "text": "The best way to do this would be to exchange the funds into USD and wire the funds to your bank account in the US. It is up to you whether you want to hold USD or Euros. Depends if you plan to invest money in the US.", "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": "d80dc46153b70c74eb54261f370d06aa", "text": "My current favorite service for this kind of transfer is Transferwise. The fees are quite low when compared to the 2.5-3% by high-street banks for currency conversion, to which you need to add the international wire transfer fee, and it's often a lot faster, as they split it into two domestic transfers while the international part + currency conversion happens internally to Transferwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d5eb834909fe217fc1de584ecdacbd", "text": "The best way is to approach your bank and fill out a transfer form to send USD to your US account (if you are visiting India). They will require quite a number of proof (AADHAR, PAN, Passport) copies. Otherwise speak to your bank about how to do a wire transfer from your India A/C to US; after de-moitization regulations have tightened, the best course of action would be to speak to your bank directly.", "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": "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": "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": "ba62c505f4d6f363fe60f7ca52e607cf", "text": "I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa4745955d3eeaef5710f6980b26d55", "text": "You could buy a money order with your cash, then mail the money order to Deutsche Bank Germany for deposit into your account. You could also buy a prepaid debit card (like a Visa/AMEX giftcard) with your cash. Then, open a new Paypal account and add this prepaid card. Finally, send money to yourself using the prepaid card as the funding source. You could use a money transfer service, like Western Union, to transfer the cash to a friend/family in Germany. Then ask them to deposit it for you at Deutsche Bank Germany.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14a8a916279398241896fc0082a61796", "text": "I don't see how Paypal can stop you from transferring USD funds from your paypal account to a USD account held with a bank. Just tell them to do the transfer to your account. The issue could be around USD onshore / offshore regulation. Is the US government preventing EU citizens from taking USD income offshore? If that's the case then you need a correspondent bank. So in other words, like using your friend. But what you can do is ask your bank who is their correspondent bank in the US, and whether they have the license required to transfer USD funds offshore. So you shift the regulation issues to your bank, and then you have to accept your bank's exchange rate - which is going to be better than paypal, who charges too much for FX transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "324db0b73ebde0b9908675aaec81ed4f", "text": "I'm travelling to the US soon and will transfer to a US $ account from either an € account or £ account. My dad recommends transferring € because it's strong at the moment compared to previously. The £ is weak compared to what it was, but still stronger than €. Which is the best option at the moment?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27ad062be6239cd491e4f3ad3e523df9", "text": "Yes. According to the IRS website, see #2: Whether a need is immediate and heavy depends on the facts and circumstances. Certain expenses are deemed to be immediate and heavy, including: (1) certain medical expenses; (2) costs relating to the purchase of a principal residence; (3) tuition and related educational fees and expenses; (4) payments necessary to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, a principal residence; (5) burial or funeral expenses; and (6) certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence. Expenses for the purchase of a boat or television would generally not qualify for a hardship distribution. A financial need may be immediate and heavy even if it was reasonably foreseeable or voluntarily incurred by the employee. (Reg. §1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii))", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d5a2c50b5203029f48d9b4038438591b", "text": "Yes. I have personally signed such contracts (fixed budget software development) and lost money every single time. And yes, it is quite possible for you to get paid under minimum wage if you take too long. Scope creep is the primary culprit for these kinds of contracts, so make sure you put together iron-clad explanations of what is and is not covered by the contract (and pad the asking price for good measure).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a49fc3ec7da74e005fa6637578970f66", "text": "In general the other party will expect you to keep your promises. If you promise to do something for a fixed amount of money, you take on a risk and it is no longer their problem if you work slower than you planned. In principle it could even be the case that you take on a project and fail, after which the company may not have to pay at all. So regardless of how things should be written in your books (For example a theoretical pay above minimum wage but a loss for your private company): An important thing to note is that if you are worried about ending up below minimum wage, you are definitely asking a fee that is too low. You should keep in mind that your fee should include a fair compensation for the expected work, and a fair compensation for the risk that you have taken on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6944f9c0b50e5048b10f8ec9bfc045df", "text": "Software Contractors are not employees of the company that is procuring the software. Software Contractors necessarily work for another legal business entity. There is a business to business relationship between the procurer of the software and the entity producing the software. Therefore, the company procuring the software is not required to pay a minimum wage, or adhere to any other employment law. When any individual or company orders a software product and agrees to pay for it, that is a fixed priced contract. This happens millions of times a day. The amount of time taken to produce the software has no direct bearing on price. For instance, there is no minimum price for Microsoft Word based on the number of hours taken to produce it. Generally a Software Contractor will be a director and shareholder of a limited liability corporation. Directors are exempt from the standard protection offered under employment law. If the company producing the software was employing non-directors to produce the software, rather than sub-contracting to another business then employment law would apply.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f5fac20924da0c47c46d22b313e9d0b3", "text": "\"It's not \"\"the market\"\" deciding anything if you're forcing a business to pay someone an arbitrary amount that you declare to be a \"\"living wage\"\". Why do you believe that you get to interfere in a mutual agreement between two people? One guy goes to another and says \"\"hey wanna do this job for me for X dollars\"\" and the other guy says \"\"ok cool sounds good\"\" and here you are jumping in and saying \"\"nope, can't allow that, I have to stop you\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74e554f4464d6e1d32033f8c6c94c8ce", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-labour-analysis/japan-inc-turns-contract-workers-into-permanent-staff-as-labor-market-tightens-idUSKCN1BC3PJ) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Last year, the average monthly pay for regular workers was 321,700 yen while for contract workers it was 211,800 yen, so a change in status can mean a big jump in pay plus benefits workers weren't previously receiving. > LABOR LAW REVISIONS. The trend is expected to accelerate toward April 2018 when a revised labor contract law starts forcing companies to provide permanent status for temporary workers who have served more than five years, if the workers request it. > The share of non-regular workers has almost doubled as companies saddled with excess capacity, debt and excess workers have replaced regular employees with cheaper contract workers. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6xgsde/japans_labor_market_is_getting_so_tight_that/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~202637 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*: **work**^#1 **employee**^#2 **year**^#3 **job**^#4 **contract**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b35780cda789898ec37a6d9718bbd5f", "text": "I can only speak to natural gas but I imagine the answer for electricity is the same. In general, yes, it is better to lock into a fixed price contract as in the long run, natural gas prices increase over time. However, if you locked (signed a fixed price contract) in prior to the economic downturn, most likely you were better off not doing so but the key is long-term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_prices However, do your research as fixed priced contracts vary considerably from company to company. http://www.energyshop.com/ I think it's a good time to sign a fixed-term contract right now as I don't see prices coming down much further with global economies are now recovering from the downturn. HTH", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09341e6010c64a265197ec01f49e1ee6", "text": "As no one has mentioned them I will... The US Treasury issues at least two forms of bonds that tend to always pay some interest even when prevailing rates are zero or negative. The two that I know of are TIPS and I series bonds. Below are links to the descriptions of these bonds: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/tips/res_tips.htm http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds/res_ibonds.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67198b44a9ad25a8f823da4edc053c3f", "text": "\"From some background reading I'm doing, it sounds like the union has people by the proverbial balls anyway. Even in an \"\"agency shop\"\", where union membership is optional, non members must pay for the collective bargaining done by the union, and \"\"union shop\"\" just means that the employer can hire anybody, but they must join the union in order to be employed. All of those seem to indicate that every worker in the represented class must accept the terms of the collective bargaining. [reference](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Workers_of_America_v._Beck#Background) Part of the reason that I'm curious is that, once I've decided that I'm done being an engineer, I think it might be fun to teach, but every time I hear about union negotiations, it makes me think that operating in that system would be lame. Going from a world where merit is the primary differentiator to a world where years in the system count for more would kinda suck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b746fa726e1723cb28bd6ebb60a627b5", "text": "\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e50a9213f93bfadf3a5f331bed00199", "text": "a 60k pay raise is totally possible (depending on too many factors to list (ok, fine I'm generalizing)) coming from TX to San Jose. the difference in raw pay numbers makes it emotionally hard to make rational comparisons. I once baked at a job on the east coast early I'm my career before I understood how to compare reasonably. anecdotal evidence shows it's possible because a machinist friend is moving here from Austin because he can make much more money. of course that's just an example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f803ab9782a2449162023ce51e03255", "text": "Note too that being a contractor means that you will unavoidably have periods between contracts; you tend to be out of work more often than a salaried employee would. You need to set your rates so your average income, including those down times, adds up to a living wage including all those benefits that aren't being covered. If a company hires a contractor, they understand that this is part of the trade-off. They avoid making a long-term commitment when they don't have a long-term need, and they accept that this convenience may cost a bit more in the short term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "f4544ee466a8913a296cb6bb79266d0a", "text": "None of those things sounded like concessions. I suspect, if you negotiated health care in terms of percentage of the cost instead of in raw dollars deducted, it'd actually come out that the company was taking a hit since the last contract. (I have no numbers to back this up, it's just that health care costs have been skyrocketing the last few years.) Seniority rights kinda suck because they're just determined by time on the job and not merit. I'll take someone with 5 years in who's been getting better the whole time over someone with 20 who's been doing the negotiated minimum since the beginning. I'd like to be able to give the new people incentive to kick ass at their job. The thing I don't like about unions is that they take the individual out of the game. Solidarity leads to one-size-fits all thinking, which is also the kind of thinking that gets companies thinking that everybody is replaceable. Really, everybody'd be better off if good people were hard to replace and average people could get by, but not excel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1efec9c5402e5dac2668c94341a54eff", "text": "The partnership agrees to pay each of you salaries and/or bonuses, typically based on the net profit brought in. You do have a legal document setting out the rules for this partnership, right? If so, the exact answer should be in there. If you don't or it isn't, you need a lawyer yesterday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cf0a5724d02dbb1d92fe3db51804e3d", "text": "\"When he wrote this I think there may have been greater interchangeability between workers, workers were perfectly competitive if you will. I find that there is huge wage growth, in certain industries and with certain skills. This only impacts a limited number of people, with the majority of workers in fields that are not heavily valued. Another avenue would be to look at the \"\"real\"\" wage. If wages are going up only 1-2%, but inflation was at negative 3-4%, then those workers wages were increasing at 4-6%. I am not sure the gig economy is to blame. The gig economy would suggest that we are nowhere near full employment. How can people have time to have these gigs if they were gainfully employed already? Another scenario is that we are not near full employment at all, that you have a large number of people who are reluctantly part time, supplementing their income with other jobs to make ends meet. And I am sure that were Milton Friedman alive today, he would change his assumption to match reality. I wonder what wisdom he would have for us today.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53c9196acc52be86c9887d8674257cee", "text": "This is really just a matter of planning. It's good that you don't want the train to go off the rails but really you just need to budget your fixed expenses. I do this by having two checking accounts. One account gets a direct deposit to cover all of my fixed expenses, the other is my regular checking account. Take your rent and other fixed expenses, if you have any, and total them. Take that total and divide by four. That's how much of each check you should be socking away in to the separate account. Additionally, with a 30% pay increase you can probably start a savings account. You should start to establish an emergency fund so this really never becomes a problem. Take 10% of your pay and put it in savings, this will still leave you with a healthy pay increase to enjoy but you'll keep some of your money for yourself too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d34c21a2d3c48e716c0f7c03fbe1e8d", "text": "\"There are several ways you can get out of paying your student loans back in the USA: You become disabled and the loan is dismissed once verified by treating doctor or the Social Security Administration. You become a peace officer. You become a teacher; generally K-12, but I have heard from the DOE that teachers at state schools qualify as well. So the \"\"malicious\"\" friend B is prescribing to the theory that if one of those conditions becomes true, friend A will not have to pay back the loan. The longer you drag it out, the more chance you have to fulfill a condition. Given that 2 of these methods require a commitment, my guess is that they are thinking more along the lines of the first one, which is horrible. Financially, it makes no sense to delay paying back your loans because deferred loans are only interest-free until you graduate and are past your grace period, after which they will begin accruing interest. Unsubsidized loans accrue interest from the day you get them, only their payback is deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period. Anytime you ask for forbearance, you are still accruing interest and it is capitalizing into your principal — you are just given a chance to delay payback due to financial hardship, bad health, or loss of job. Therefore, at no point are you benefiting beyond the time you are in school and getting an education, still looking for a job, or dealing with health issues. In the current market, no CD, no savings account, and no investment will give you substantially more return that will offset the loss of the interest you are accruing. Even those of us in the old days getting 4.X % rates would not do this. There was a conditional consolidation offer the DOE allowed which could bring all your loans under one roof for a competitive 5.x-6.x % rate allowing you a single payment, but even then you would benefit if you had rates that were substantially higher. From a credit worthiness aspect, you are hurt by the outstanding obligation and any default along the way, so you really want to avoid that — paying off or down your loans are a good way to ensure you don't shoot yourself in the foot.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3e29685e4fc19ff48e0634c8621dfe68", "text": "If you're waiting for Apple to send you a 1099 for the 2008 tax season, well, you shouldn't be. App Store payments are not reported to the IRS and you will not be receiving a 1099 in the mail from anyone. App Store payments are treated as sales commissions rather than royalties, according to the iTunes Royalty department of Apple. You are responsible for reporting your earnings and filing your own payments for any sums you have earned from App Store. – https://arstechnica.com/apple/2009/01/app-store-lessons-taxes-and-app-store-earnings The closest thing to sales commissions in WA state seems to be Service and Other Activities described at http://dor.wa.gov/content/FileAndPayTaxes/BeforeIFile/Def_TxClassBandO.aspx#0004. When you dig a little deeper into the tax code, WAC 458-20-224 (Service and other business activities) includes: (4) Persons engaged in any business activity, other than or in addition to those for which a specific rate is provided in chapter 82.04 RCW, are taxable under the service and other business activities classification upon gross income from such business. - http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=458-20-224 I am not a lawyer or accountant, so caveat emptor.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6bd9d272d2c1f443beb8f7f2851e50c7", "text": "\"(Selling apps is AFAIK business, not freelancing - unless the type of app you produce is considered a freelancing subject. The tax office will give you a questionnaire and then decide). As Einzelunternehmer, you can receive the payments for the apps to the same account where your wages go. However, there are lots of online accounts that do not cost fees, so consider to receive them on a separate account so you have the business and private kind of separate (for small Einzelunternehmer, there is no legal separation between business and private money - you have full liability with your private money for the business). The local chamber of commerce can tell you everything about setting up such a business, ask them (you'll probably have to become a member there anyways). They have information as well on VAT (Umsatzsteuer, USt) which you need to declare unless you get an exemption (probably possible), and about Gewerbesteuer (the income tax of the business) etc. For the tax, you have \"\"subforms\"\" for the income tax e.g. for wages and for business income, so you just submit both with the main form. You'll get an appropriate tax number when registering the business. Social security/insurance: as long as the app selling is only a side business, the social insurance payments for your main job completely cover the side job as well. You need to make sure that your employment contract is compatible with the app business, though. A quick search indicates that there is a tax treaty between Germany and the Ukraine, Wikipedia says there are no contracts about social insurance in effect (yet).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c41fac766a5f69eeb5e8152d9c4ca30", "text": "iTunes U has a wealth of content from highly respected universities including Yale, Harvard, Wharton, MIT, etc. If I were fifteen and looking to build some business acumen and savvy, that is where I would start. In particular, I find Harvard business review idea casts to be thought provoking and very timely. In addition, they generally focus on disruptive business models. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b76302ffffe9f7cb6178113837b4c9e", "text": "\"Yeah, I'll take the challenge...:) How trustworthy these are and what are their sources of income? These are in fact two separate questions, but the answers are related. How trustworthy? As trustworthy as they're clear about their own sources of income. If you cannot find any clue as to why, what for and how they're paying you - you probably should walk away. What's too good to be true usually is indeed too good to be true. For those of the sites that I know of their sources of income, it is usually advertisements and surveys. To get paid, you have to watch advertisements and/or answer surveys. I know of some sites who are legit, and pay people (not money, but gift cards, airline miles, etc) for participating in surveys. My own HMO (Kaiser in California) in fact pays (small amounts) to members who participate in enough surveys, so its legit. Are these sites worthwhile to consider for extra income? Not something you could live off, but definitely can get you enough gift cards for your weekly trip to Starbucks. What do I need to consider tax wise? Usually the amounts are very low, and are not paid in cash. While it is income, I doubt the IRS will chase you if you don't report the $20 Amazon gift card you got from there. It should, strictly speaking, be reported (probably as hobby income) on your tax return. Most people don't bother dealing with such small amounts though. In some cases (like the HMO I mentioned), its basically a rebate of the money paid (you pay your copays, deductibles etc. Since the surveys are only for members, you basically get your money back, not additional income). This is in fact similar to credit card rebates. Is there a best practice for handling the income? If we're talking about significant amounts (more than $20-30 a year), then you need to keep track of the income and related expenses, and report it as any other business income on your taxes, Schedule C. Is there a good test to determine what is and isn't a scam? As I said - if it looks too good to be true - it most likely is. If you're required to provide your personal/financial information without any explanation as to why, what it will be used for, and why and what for you're going to be paid - I'd walk away. Otherwise, you can also check Internet reviews, BBB ratings, FTC information and the relevant state agencies and consumer watchdogs (for example: http://www.scamadviser.com) whether they've heard of that particular site, and what is the information they have on it. A very good sign for a scam is contact information. Do they have a phone number to call to? Is it in your own country? If its not in your own country - definitely go away (for example the original link that was in the question pointed to a service whose phone number is in the UK, but listed address is in Los Angeles, CA. A clear sign of a scam). If they do have a phone number - try it, talk to them, call several times and see how many different people you're going to talk to. If its always the same person - run and hide. Do they have an address? If not - walk away. If they do - look it up. Is it a PMB/POB? A \"\"virtual\"\" office? Or do they have a proper office set up, which you can see on the map and in the listings as their office? And of course your guts. If your guts tell you its a scam - it very likely is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a8e9b812dee0861eded0b48d1a0846", "text": "\"Your employer appears to be stealing from you. I know, Canada -- but I'm assuming you have the distinct pleasure of getting paid in local currency. I know it's easier said than done, but if you can code decently in something like Ruby, just look online for local hackathons and Startup Weekend events. Every single on I have attended, one or more professional speakers ends their presentation with \"\"and we're hiring developers\"\". Even if that doesn't happen, you'll get some great opportunities for networking and you will have a rudimentary public project to share with potential leads. Plus they are fun.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07d96288f612a95c2bbec1db71f046b7", "text": "The store keeps track of what you buy. It is all part of their big data. The knowledge of what you buy helps them project future sales. It allows them to target their marketing. But maybe even more importantly they can sell this knowledge to outside companies. They aren't going to give away that information to another company that would love to have that data, just so they could sell it. Stores use those loyalty cards to be able to link your household to those purchases. Those discounts, or free products, are what they use to entice you to give up your privacy. The fact that in your town young adults love caramel apples, even more than the town next door, makes them confident that your town will love caramel apple scented shampoo. Thus they send you coupons when it become available. They will also sell this knowledge to the shampoo companies. Do some stores make it possible for you to download the data? Yes they do. Apple stores send all receipts via email. Kohls allows me to see detail information about my transactions on line. There must be others. I don't know if any are grocery stores.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1154baf84454ded433044779cbbcfec8", "text": "You're charging service fees as a conduit entity for these tickets. While the service fee is not a fixed rate, but a percentage, you would need to record each purchase at dollar amount. To illustrate, it would look like: Now, to your question: How do I report this on my taxes? You would first start out by filing your Schedule C from the eyes of the business (the money you earn at your job, and the money you earn as a business are different). Just keep a general journal with the above entry for each sale and close them down to a simple balance sheet and income statement and you should be fine. Of course, read the instructions for your Schedule C before you begin. As always, good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71cc81f950ab08f4457fb8f094df23fa", "text": "\"Donate buttons are meaningless with regards to taxes. This is payment for something you provided, and you cannot claim that you've received a gift. Any money you receive in this way is payment for your software. Remember, for gifts - no consideration should have been provided to the donor. Anything for which a consideration was provided - cannot be a gift. In your case the consideration is the software, and it's value is the amount you were paid. Since every person can decide how much to pay you on his own - any payment is for the software, not a gift. Any money you get is taxable to you, and you cannot claim it as \"\"gifts\"\" without exposing yourself to risks of making fraudulent claims. Consult a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for a qualified tax advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bae6e8d76b98b2ba96a5520be36c2c8f", "text": "I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccbc20034b475506fd64d7f07b3989cf", "text": "There are a few methods you can use to estimate your taxes. On the results screen, the app will show you your estimated tax burden, your estimated withholding for the year, and your estimated overpayment/refund or shortfall/tax due. It may also have recommendations for you on how to adjust your W-4 (although, this late in the year, I think it only tells you to come back next year to reevaluate). Your state might also have income tax, and if you are curious about that, you can find the state tax form and estimate your state income tax as well. My guess is that you will be getting a refund this year, as you have only worked half of the year. But that is only a guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a931863acc83ad4edff1752ec43df94f", "text": "www.earnings.com is helpful thinkorswim's thinkDesktop platform has a lot of earnings information tied with flags on their charts they are free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960", "text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2ecbf066a9813b931081dcaab948ad7", "text": "\"Source?? Let me see all your evidence. What apps are you downloading and giving info too without permission? They have to request data and you have to click on \"\"allow\"\"-- its baked into the API. Please show me your sources that show Apple knowingly allows apps to have and distribute my personal information without asking for permission. These apps have access to all the encrypted data on my phone without my knowledge?? Please show me sources.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dde42cb2eb328499f4a02f6e692de0e", "text": "You report each position separately. You do this on form 8949. 7 positions is nothing, it will take you 5 minutes. There's a tip on form 8949 that says this, though: For Part I (short term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all short-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 1a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). For Part II (long term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all long-term transactions reported on Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on Schedule D, line 8a; you are not required to report these transactions on Form 8949 (see instructions). If the 1099B in your case shows basis for each transaction as reported to the IRS - you're in luck, and don't have to type them all in separately.", "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": "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": "efce77f31deaafbffcf362e30aea9e0d", "text": "\"VNQ only holds ~16% residential REITs. The rest are industrial, office, retail (e.g. shopping malls), specialized (hotels perhaps?) etc. Thus, VNQ isn't as correlated towards housing as you might have assumed just based on it being about \"\"real estate.\"\" Second of all, if by \"\"housing\"\" you mean that actual houses have gone up appreciably, then you ought to realize that residential REITs seldom hold actual houses. The residential units held tend primarily to be rental apartments. There is a relationship in prices, but not direct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18af34075798769df46f3517dde7d05", "text": "To round out something that @Chris W. Rea pointed out, the business that a REIT is in will be either A) Equity REIT... property management, B) mortgage REIT... lending, or C) hybrid REIT (both). A very key point about why REITs broadly have been struggling lately, (and this would show up in the REIT indices/ETFs you've linked to,) is linked to the REIT business models. For an Equity REIT, they borrow money at the going rate (let's say ~4.5% for commercial-scale loans), and use that to take out mortgages on physical properties. If a property rents for $15K per month, and they can take out a $1.8 million loan at $9,000 per month, then their business is around managing maintenance, operating expenses, and taxes on that $6,000 per month margin. For a mortgage REIT, they borrow funds as a highly qualified borrower, (again let's say ~4.5%), and lend those funds back out at a higher rate. The basic concept is that if you borrow $10 million at 4.5% for 30 years, you need to pay it back at $50,668 per month. If you can lend it out reliably at 5%, you collect $53,682 per month... a handy $3,000 per month. The cheaper you can get money at (below 4.5%) and the higher you can lend it at (above 5%), the better your margin is. The worry is that both REIT business models are very highly dependent on the cost of borrowing money. With the US Fed changing its bond-buying/QE/stimulus activity, the prevailing interest rates are likely to go up. While this has its benefits (inflation), it also will make it more expensive for these types of companies to do business.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "478a4f74037de66e9ee99150366f6030", "text": "Housing prices are set by different criteria. It can become memoryless the same as the stock if the criteria used to set its price in the past is no longer valid. For example, take Phoenix or Las Vegas - in the past these were considered attractive investments because of the economical growth and the climate of the area. While the climate hasn't changed, the economical growth stopped not only there but also in the places where people buying the houses lived (which is all over the world really). What happened to the housing market? Dropped sharply and stays flat for several years now at the bottom. So it doesn't really matter if the house was worth $300K in Phoenix 5 years ago, you can only sell it now for ~$50K, and that's about it. The prices have been flat low for several years and the house price was $50K, but does it mean its going to stay so? No, once economy gears up, the prices will go up as well. So its not exactly memory-less, but the stocks are not memory-less as well. There is correlation between the past and the future performance. If the environment conditions are similar - the performance is likely to be similar. For stocks however there's much more environment conditions than the housing market and its much harder to predict them. But even with the housing people were burnt a lot on the misconception that the past performance correlates to the future. It doesn't necessarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "c000a032309b520eb3ac054a8cc66a0d", "text": "They lost money on an absolute basis. They got slammed as a hedge fund because its returns are less than 0%, not because they underperformed relative to the market. Hedge funds aren't mean to outperform a benchmark. They are meant to preserve (and grow) your funds. That's why long only houses are happy about their -15% when the market is down 30%, but a hedge fund should be above 0%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80923207a6f183be4e8cc88ae83b06f9", "text": "Here is a simple example of how daily leverage fails, when applied over periods longer than a day. It is specifically adjusted to be more extreme than the actual market so you can see the effects more readily. You buy a daily leveraged fund and the index is at 1000. Suddenly the market goes crazy, and goes up to 2000 - a 100% gain! Because you have a 2x ETF, you will find your return to be somewhere near 200% (if the ETF did its job). Then tomorrow it goes back to normal and falls back down to 1000. This is a fall of 50%. If your ETF did its job, you should find your loss is somewhere near twice that: 100%. You have wiped out all your money. Forever. You lose. :) The stock market does not, in practice, make jumps that huge in a single day. But it does go up and down, not just up, and if you're doing a daily leveraged ETF, your money will be gradually eroded. It doesn't matter whether it's 2x leveraged or 8x leveraged or inverse (-1x) or anything else. Do the math, get some historical data, run some simulations. You're right that it is possible to beat the market using a 2x ETF, in the short run. But the longer you hold the stock, the more ups and downs you experience along the way, and the more opportunity your money has to decay. If you really want to double your exposure to the market over the intermediate term, borrow the money yourself. This is why they invented the margin account: Your broker will essentially give you a loan using your existing portfolio as collateral. You can then invest the borrowed money, increasing your exposure even more. Alternatively, if you have existing assets like, say, a house, you can take out a mortgage on it and invest the proceeds. (This isn't necessarily a good idea, but it's not really worse than a margin account; investing with borrowed money is investing with borrowed money, and you might get a better interest rate. Actually, a lot of rich people who could pay off their mortgages don't, and invest the money instead, and keep the tax deduction for mortgage interest. But I digress.) Remember that assets shrink; liabilities (loans) never shrink. If you really want to double your return over the long term, invest twice as much money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to *market neutral* hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7281e2011dcf9a28ad110b6fda9ae354", "text": "\"The majority (about 80%) of mutual funds are underperforming their underlying indexes. This is why ETFs have seen massive capital inflows compared to equity funds, which have seen significant withdrawals in the last years. I would definitively recommend going with an ETF. In addition to pure index based ETFs that (almost) track broad market indexes like the S&P 500 there are quite a few more \"\"quant\"\" oriented ETFs that even outperformed the S&P. I am long the S&P trough iShares ETFs and have dividend paying ETFs and some quant ETFS on top (Invesco Powershares) in my portfolio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a5ce7886ff8ef284eec9051fa22bd58", "text": "Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway took a 50% loss in each of the last two bear markets. His stock even lost 10% in 2015 when the S&P lost 8%. He doesn't have a track record to support the claim that his stock performs relatively better in a bear market, so perhaps it's best to take his letter with a grain of salt. Edit: As one commenter points out, Mr. Buffett is comparing the book performance of his fund to the market performance of an index. That is an apples to oranges comparison. It's deceptive at best.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43740123fa97c27cf5e4af82928e3592", "text": "But if you add a security to the index you also remove one from the index, thus both a buy and sell. If weights change some go up, some go down thus some need to be purchased and some need to be sold. So I still don't see how ETFs are net sinks beyond their simple AUM.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d59301acd1b942e879c09beefec5df5d", "text": "tl;dr: The CNN Money and Yahoo Finance charts are wildly inaccurate. The TD Ameritrade chart appears to be accurate and shows returns with reinvested dividends. Ignoring buggy data, CNN most likely shows reinvested dividends for quoted securities but not for the S&P 500 index. Yahoo most likely shows all returns without reinvested dividends. Thanks to a tip from Grade Eh Bacon, I was able to determine that TD Ameritrade reports returns with reinvested dividends (as it claims to do). Eyeballing the chart, it appears that S&P 500 grew by ~90% over the five year period the chart covers. Meanwhile, according to this S&P 500 return estimator, the five year return of S&P 500, with reinvested dividends, was 97.1% between July 2012 to July 2017 (vs. 78.4% raw returns). I have no idea what numbers CNN Money is working from, because it claims S&P 500 only grew about 35% over the last five years, which is less than half of the raw return. Ditto for Yahoo, which claims 45% growth. Even stranger still, the CNN chart for VFINX (an S&P 500 index fund) clearly shows the correct market growth (without reinvesting dividends from the S&P 500 index), so whatever problem exists is inconsistent: Yahoo also agrees with itself for VFINX, but comes in a bit low even if your assume no reinvestment of dividends (68% vs. 78% expected); I'm not sure if it's ever right. By way of comparison, TD's chart for VFINX seems to be consistent with its ABALX chart and with reality: As a final sanity check, I pulled historical ^GSPC prices from Yahoo Finance. It closed at $1406.58 on 27 Aug 2012 and $2477.55 on 28 Aug 2017, or 76.1% growth overall. That agrees with TD and the return calculator above, and disagrees with CNN Money (on ABALX). Worse, Yahoo's own charts (both ABALX and VFINX) disagree with Yahoo's own historical data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f141bf33c2f9103e671ece71f28922bb", "text": "Low volatility trading tends to be a hallmark of the late summer as Wall Street by and large goes on summer vacation. When all those traders and hedge fund managers return to work full-tilt in September, the market tends to become more volatile - either upwards or downwards. If you are wondering why these months have been particularly poor relative to others, than I don't think anyone knows the reason why.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb033d7bb61067cb9b8e2b2a79b2ed73", "text": "Most likely crazy bad, given all the news rolling out by October, mainly the fed meetings and government debt ceiling. Those big issues will scare the market imo. Nothing bad may actually happen, but the markets do not care what actually happens, but what they THINK is going to happen. I might take up some long TVIX/VXX positions myself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d66880aced300bb4bcaf0bfbcd4e8d", "text": "\"I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of \"\"I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent\"\" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7c7d5c317bd7ca3d56dfc906b82d5a8", "text": "If your planning on shorting the stocks be careful, while the value of the retail sector may be declining there will be a lot of back and forth over the next ten years, and as REITs discounts to nav increases, there is huge opportunities for buyouts from developers who have other use ideas for the real estate. The real estate will always have value, even if it's not as a shopping center.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fd1f453fdf50f3d43731985b8d1c9bb", "text": "Moreover the fact that they're simply invested in two of the biggest emerging market ETFs which preform well with global stability but are overall kinda risky long term goes to show that it's not some unheard of success. As you said, the proving ground will be whether they can make money in a down economy, where it's much harder to find profitable investments. Perhaps they'll switch to bonds and commodities.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "38f7e76038c4ca35c5a3dfcd210ed4b8", "text": "A friend recently bought an 800€ TV on 0% financing. Sounded like a sensible thing to do. Why pay 800 when you can pay 80pm for 10 months? It took 30mins to set up the 'loan'. She had to sign all kinds of documents, giving away much personal information (age, employment info, income, email address etc). She now has a financial relationship with an institution which has nothing to do with the item purchased. She is bombarded with all kinds of financial offerings. She regrets taking out the finance. She had the money. The hassle and the unwanted links to banks make the deal unattractive. Perhaps she should have tried to make a cash deal...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a7deb3d6c5891fea008a3d261740e7d", "text": "\"Credit scores are not such a big deal in Canada as they are in the US and even some European countries. One reason for this: the Social Insurance Number (SIN number) isn't used for so many purposes like the Social Security Number (SSN) in the US. The SIN number isn't even required to get credit (but with some exceptions it is needed to open an interest-bearing savings account, so that the interest income can be reported). You can refuse to provide the SIN number to most private companies. Canada also has one of the highest per-capita immigration rates of any large country, so new arrivals are expected, and services are geared up for them. Most of the banks offer special deals for \"\"New Canadians\"\". You should get a credit card (even if just a secured credit card) through them with one of these offers to start a credit file anyway, but there's no need to actually use it much. Auto-paying a utility bill through the card, and paying it off in full each month, is one way to keep it active. No need to ever pay any interest. Most major apartment rental firms will expect a good proportion of their renters to be new to Canada, so should have procedures in place to deal with it (such as a higher deposit). You should not give them your SIN for a credit check, even when you're more established. Same for utilities, they can just charge a higher deposit if they can't credit check you. For private landlords, everything is negotiable (but see the laws link at the end of this answer). You will later need a credit rating for a mortgage on a house (if not paying cash), so it's worth getting that one token credit card. Useful for car rental also. Here's a fairly complete summary of the laws on renting in Canada, which includes the maximum deposits that can be asked for, and notice periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b7fa896641c253bb54b8cc490b4d8ee", "text": "Yes, it is. Got to start somewhere. Typically directly through a company itself. Check out this site that lists a bunch of them and their minimum requirements. Not many only accept $100 but there are a few. ie. ACTIVEnergy Income Fund, CIBC, COMPASS Income Fund, Suncor Energy Inc. and a few others.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0289022308ebf38fe78e9fa60167689b", "text": "Lending isn't profitable when interest rates are this low. Consider what's involved to offer a savings or checking account. The bank must maintain branches with tellers. The bank has to pay rent (or buy and pay property taxes and utilities). The bank has to pay salaries. The bank has to maintain cash so as to make change. And pay for insurance against robbery. All of that costs money. At 6% interest, a bank can sort of make money. Not great money, but it takes in more than it has to pay out. At 4% interest, which is about where ten year mortgage rates are in Canada, the bank doesn't make enough margin. They are better off selling the loan and closing their branches than offering free checking accounts. An additional problem is that banks tend to make money from overdraft fees. But there's been a move to limit overdraft fees, as they target the most economically vulnerable. So Canadian banks tend to charge monthly fees instead. UK banks may also start charging monthly fees if interest rates stay low and other fees get curtailed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55dc1bbd3528ca485ea549a23d352fa9", "text": "In the United Kingdom, there is a leading company that has been offering Progressive business funding solutions to the businesses for the last 120 years. Their service areas are South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Australia, USA, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb45f0f3cdc5a4feeae93a9c8bf160c7", "text": "The idea is great but US securities laws impose a huge burden on these businesses. Specifically [Rule 502(c)](http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/33ActRls/rule502.html) of Reg D prohibits 'general solicitation and advertising' - such as using the internet. There is currently pending legislation to amend the [US Securities act of 1933 sec. 4(2)](http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/33Act/sec4.html) regarding public offerings to help reduce such barriers, but as it stands there are significant barriers to entry in the market. SEC filing and reporting requirements, especially after Dodd-Frank, are onerous to say the least, and running direct lending services are at the moment largely cost prohibitive due to these requirements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c19ae66b44737cc53fa80786107eabb5", "text": "The best description of P2P lending process I saw comes from the SEC proceedings. They are very careful about naming things that are happening in the process. Prosper got back to business after this order, but the paper describes succinctly how Prosper worked when its notes haven't yet been registered by the SEC. These materials contain a lot of responsible comments on how crowdfunding, including P2P lending, works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "020f958d49f7f77b5400dc0ac1d52896", "text": "If money is more expensive (costs more to borrow) then fewer people will be able to qualify to make the payments for a particular size of mortgage. This reduces the number of potential buyers for property at that price. As sellers still want to sell, they will move their prices down to where more people can afford to buy. So rising interest rates create downward pressure on housing prices. But Toronto is the biggest city in Canada. I'd expect part of the high prices there is the location: lots of people want to be close to lots of activities, action, and opportunity. Unless something catastrophic happens, I don't see Toronto losing that advantage. If anything, it's going to get a tad warmer up there in the coming decades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a29abe8bc565c446b56b3aa8d4130e1", "text": "I was active in Prosper when it started up. It was very easy to get attracted to the high risk loans with big interest rates and I lost about 14% after all my loans ran their course. (There's 10 still active, but it won't change the figure by much). Prosper has wider standards than Lending club, so more borrowers with worse credit scores could ask for loans. Lenders could also set interest rates far lower, so they could end up having loans with rates lower than the risk implied. This was set up with the idea of a free market where anyone could ask to borrow and anyone could loan money at whatever interest rate they wanted, It turns out a lot of lenders were not as smart as they thought they were. (Aside: it's funny how people will clamor for a free market, but when they lose money will suddenly be against the free market they said they wanted, this seems to apply to both individual p2p lenders up to massive multinational banks.). Since then Prosper has tightened their standards on who can borrow and the interest rates are now fixed. So I expect going forward it will be less easy to lose a bunch of money. The key is that one bad loan will erase the return of many good ones. So it's best to examine the loans carefully and stick with the high quality. Simplified Example If you have 10 1 yr loans of $100 each paying 10% interest/year, you get 10% return at the end of the year, so $100 (10% of $1000.). BUT if one loan goes bad at the start, you have lost money. So a 90% success rate in picking borrowers leads to a loss. You want to diversity over quite a few loans and you want to fund quality loans. I think really enjoyed investing through Prosper, because it gave me an insight into lending and loss ratios that I had not had before. It also caused me to look at the banks with even more incredulity when the case of the no-doc loans and neg-am loans came to light.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8271c5f5c72a8011814eda10ffe04a2", "text": "Canadian here: the US is our biggest customer, so we were impacted economically. I expected that within a year or two of the US housing collapse, we would also be hit, but something else happened: when the US dropped interest rates like a stone, we were also forced to drop interest rates. This meant that suddenly, money was being handed out for very very cheap, so cheap it was almost free if you had a decent job and good credit. The housing market here paused for a brief moment, and then continued climbing. It never stopped until some new rules were implemented, aimed mostly at foreign buyers and investors, and put in place this year. It appears however that this current drop in prices may be a temporary dip. The average cost of a home in Toronto is still around $1m CAD, and our real estate is still among the most expensive in the world if you look at how much we pay compared to our incomes. In some places, houses have basically tripled over the past decade. My point here is that Canadian home owners were not impacted negatively by the 2008 crisis. In fact, once the free money started flowing and prices went up accordingly, Canadian home owners were enriched as a direct result of the 2008 US housing crisis. The situation is clearly unsustainable, and the market is irrational. It's easy to say that we are in a bubble but it is impossible to tell when it will crash. In Canada, it's harder to walk away from mortgage debt; if you're underwater on your home, and the bank forecloses on you and sells the house for less than you owe, you still owe the bank the remainder of the money (in most provinces).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f08d6c1787b0d0596cfff5c0642ddfa", "text": "It has to do with return. I don't know if Canada has a matching feature on retirement accounts, but in the US many companies will match the first X% you put in. So for me, my first $5000 or so is matched 100%. I'll take that match over paying down any debt. Beyond that, of course it's a simple matter of rate of return. Why save in the bank at 2% when you owe at 10-18%? One can make this as simple or convoluted as they like. My mortgage is a tax deduction so my 5% mortgage costs me 3.6%. I've continued to invest rather than pay the mortgage too early, as my retirement account is with pre-tax dollars. So $72 will put $100 in that account. Even in this last decade, bad as it was, I got more than 3.6% return.", "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": "520e7ba0e4b551aa44c93970fffdde0d", "text": "On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are. Most pensions are not completely funded. In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "296a9ef0fe614daa0f69631c91d326d5", "text": "I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/metacanada] [Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Invests US$400 Million in WME│IMG](https://np.reddit.com/r/metacanada/comments/6sdk52/canada_pension_plan_investment_board_invests/) [](#footer)*^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))* [](#bot)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afc9e163be701e521007a05232e59cc0", "text": "I am not entirely sold on investing in start-up companies, but I really like the idea of crowdfunding investments. I've been an investor at [LendingClub](https://www.lendingclub.com/) for 10 months now and am quite happy so far. For those of you who don't know, Lending Club is where you can crowdfund consumer loans. I'm also very interested in [Solar Mosaic](https://solarmosaic.com/). Once their quiet period ends I am planning on investing in solar projects through them. Of course I'll want to see some data related to their risk and returns, but I love the idea of earning a return from funding solar projects. I think that crowdfunding allows you to invest in areas that are normally off-limits to those of us who aren't rich. At the very least these investments offer a nice source of portfolio diversification.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7691b04c045df57a892e781356f4004f", "text": "Washington State doesn't have a state income tax for individuals, so unless you've got a business there's nothing to file. Find out more on their website.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0dbe615376361cbe5aee13c01dac142b", "text": "\"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfbe958f8ed0a8af91bbfb143871a2cb", "text": "The obligation is contractual, so you need to read the contract to answer your question. However, since you paid for the service provided, I see no way they can force you buy any other service from them. They cannot file your tax returns without your explicit consent (on a form dedicated to that, dated and having the numbers matching the return filed - not something you can sign before the actual return is ready). Worst case they can claim you owe them more money, but since you paid for the services provided, I can't see how they can have that stand in court as well. Bottom line - even if the contract has such an obligation, I cannot see how it can be enforced. As to the mistake they noted... I wouldn't rely on H&R Block advice in any matter. Very likely, the person you were talking to was not even licensed to provide tax advice. You're lucky if the person has passed CRTP exams (in California they're legally required), but I seriously doubt their clerks are EAs or CPAs (the only designations other than a lawyer legally allowed to provide tax advice). Tax preparers (CRTPs included) are only allowed to provide advice pertaining to the preparation of the tax return they're currently engaged to prepare. Claiming income is sourced or not sourced in NY is borderline, IMHO. If they got it wrong (and to me it sounds as they did) you can sue them for damages. If your situation is tricky and it is too late to get an appointment with a proper adviser - file an extension (form 4868) and deal with it after the April busy season.", "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": "91f4c060b9360b9405745f9a6e20c852", "text": "File a 2nd amended return that corrects the mistake I made on the 1st amended return This. Pay the $500 before April 27th and try to get it back later This.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a9bcaa84bf501af4ebd583840d4264a", "text": "Your best bet is going to be contacting TaxAct directly for their information. If you do enter your spouses information and choose to purchase their deluxe product, I would think you might end up paying for the second efile. I have used their deluxe version for many years now, but choose it mostly because of the free state efiling and not for the ability to determine whether or not to file separately. In my case, it makes sense to file jointly and not file separately. The deluxe version allows you to portion out your deductions and see which method of filing gives you the lowest total tax bill. Here's the link directly to TaxAct's support: https://www.taxact.com/tsupport/support_request.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df54c4fd766fcffc01e0aaeb445237d", "text": "The IRS allows filers to attach a statement explaining the reason for late filing. I have had clients do this in the past, and there has never been an issue (not that that guarantees anything, but is still good to know). Generally, the IRS is much more lenient when a taxpayer voluntarily complies with a filing requirement, even if it's late, than if they figure it out themselves and send a notice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6506ac79cb6824fd2b472b524cba0f", "text": "Since you both are members of the LLC - it is not a single-member LLC, thus you have to file the tax return on behalf of the LLC (I'm guessing you didn't elect corporate treatment, so you would be filing 1065, which is the default). You need to file form 4868 on behalf of yourselves as individuals, and form 7004 on behalf of the LLC as the partnership. Since the LLC is disregarded (unless you explicitly chose it not to be, which seems not to be the case) the taxes will in fact flow to your individual return(s), but the LLC will have to file the informational return on form 1065 and distribute K-1 forms to each of you. So you wouldn't pay additional estimated taxes with the extension, as you don't pay any taxes with the form 1065 itself. If you need a help understanding all that and filling the forms - do talk to a professional (EA or CPA licensed in your state). Also, reconsider not sending any payment. I suggest sending $1 with the extension form even if you expect a refund.", "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": "4d8e6721496b0d8ad288f2a00eb81a13", "text": "It matters because that is the requirement for the 83(b) selection to be valid. Since the context is 83(b) election, I assume you got stocks/options as compensation and didn't pay for them the FMV, thus it should have been included in your income for that year. If you didn't include the election letter - I can only guess that you also didn't include the income. Hence - you lost your election. If you did include the income and paid the tax accordingly, or if no tax was due (you actually paid the FMV), you may try amending the return and attaching the letter, but I'd suggest talking to a professional before doing it on your own. Make sure to keep a proof (USPS certified mailing receipt) of mailing the letter within the 30 days window.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfef03612efdf6839e7a6e282ba702e6", "text": "Based on these dates in your question: Going back over my records, I was able to recall the following: Maryland realized recently that on the 2009 Federal 1040 Form you stated that on December 31 2009 you liven in Maryland. They are wondering where the state tax form is. DC, MD and VA due to reciprocity collect income tax based on where you live not where you work. So when you moved in August 2009 and again in August 2010 you needed to file new state versions of the W4. The fact you did or didn't submit to your employer a correct state W-4 is not directly related, because you would owe the tax regardless. The W-4 just makes sure that something close to the correct amounts are withheld and sent to the appropriate state capital. I seem to remember something about not having to pay Maryland state taxes since I not only lived in the state for less than 6 months but also did not work in the state. The reciprocity between DC, MD and VA says that Maryland gets the money because that is where you lived. The last time I had to do a part year the law was that they would forgive a half a month. In other words if you move in late December or early January you could ignore that small time period and avoid having to file in two states. In some cases people argue that some short term moves were never meant to be permanent. You might be able to claim that except the fact that your 2009 federal tax form you most likely claimed you lived in Maryland. The next issue is time and money. If Maryland says you owe them money for that time period, and if they still have the ability to force you to pay it; This is where the issue of correct state W-4 comes in. If the money during the period you lived in Maryland was sent to Virginia, you should have had that money refunded by Richmond in the spring of 2010. But if there was no W-4 filed with your employer that would mean that Maryland didn't get any money for 2009. If you didn't tell Richmond you moved in 2009 they may not have refunded everything because they thought you lived there all year. Because of the time that has passed it may be too late to fix your Virginia filing, so they may not refund you excess payment to them. Maryland is interested in calculating how much you should have paid them in 2009. They are only looking at what you told the feds you made, and they may be assuming that you lived there the whole year. But until you file correctly that have no ability to calculate what you really owe. You need professional advice. You need to know what they can and can't collect. You also need to know what you can and can't get back from Richmond. And since it also may impact your filings for 2010 you will want to get that resolved at the same time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "871f4a0f6ba8fb25bd8237f7f9bc9b15", "text": "I'd be surprised if this ended in a materially-damaging final settlement. It may take more than 5 years to resolve, unless a smoking gun is produced. If PWC and outside counsel really issued written opinions, it could get a lot messier. Especially when we tip over into another recession, the IRS will come under intense Congressional pressure to cut a nominal deal.", "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": "45f7684814dbac7f3eed5ce793c0413b", "text": "The purpose of making sure you met the safe harbor was to avoid the penalty. Having achieved that goal the tax law allows you to wait until April 15th to pay the balance. So do so. Put enough money aside to make sure you can easily make that payment. I was in this exact situation a few years ago. I planned my w4 to make the safe harbor, and then slept easy even though the house settlement was in May and I didn't have to make the IRS payment unti 11 months later in April.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d70c66d71539d742252756e37426e4d", "text": "If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay. Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes. If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e39a1801cbfa777e2fda516c1822da31", "text": "\"It's not quite as bad as the comments indicate. Form 1040ES has been available since January (and IME has been similarly for all past years). It mostly uses the prior year (currently 2016) as the basis, but it does have the updated (2017) figures for items that are automatically adjusted for inflation: bracket points (and thus filing threshhold), standard deductions, Social Security cap, and maybe another one or two I missed. The forms making up the actual return cannot be prepared very far in advance because, as commented, Congress frequently makes changes to tax law well after the year begins, and in some cases right up to Dec. 31. The IRS must start preparing forms and pubs -- and equally important, setting the specifications for software providers like Intuit (TurboTax) and H&RBlock -- several months ahead in order to not seriously delay filing season, and with it refunds, which nearly everyone in the country considers (at least publicly) to be worse than World War Three and the destruction of the Earth by rogue asteroids. I have 1040 series from the last 4 years still on my computer, and the download dates mostly range from late September to mid January. Although one outlier shows the range of possibility: 2013 form 1040 and Schedule A were tweaked in April 2014 because Congress passed a law allowing charitable contributions for Typhoon Haiyan to be deducted in the prior year. Substantive, but relatively minor, changes happen every year, including many that keep recurring like the special (pre-AGI) teacher supplies deduction (\"\"will they or won't they?\"\"), section 179 expensing (changes slightly almost every year), and formerly the IRA-direct-to-charity option (finally made permanent last year). As commented, the current Congress and President were elected on a platform with tax reform as an important element, and they are talking even more intensely than before about doing it, although whether they will actually do anything this year is still uncertain. However, if major reform is done it will almost certainly apply to future years only, and likely only start after a lag of some months to a year. They know it causes chaos for businesses and households alike to upend without advance warning the assumptions built in to current budgets and plans -- and IME as a political matter something that is enacted now and effective fairly soon but not now is just as good (but I think that part is offtopic).\"", "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": "fe6c6b035064b9df1adf8d9f29e0d9c0", "text": "In some case the customer wants the name to be cryptic or misleading. They don't want to advertise the true nature of the business they visited. In other cases the transaction may be reported through another business. A few years ago the local PTA was having a silent auction as a fundraiser. A local business allowed the PTA to use their credit card reader to process transactions over a certain amount. Of course when the credit card statement arrived it looked like you spent $500 at the florist. I have seen PayPal listed when donating to some small charities. I have noted another case where confusion can occur. I used a debit card to buy a soda from a vending machine: the name and location were the name of the vending machine company and the location of their main office. It didn't say soda machine city A. It said Joe's vending company city B. In most cases the business and the credit card company want to make it easy to identify the transactions to keep the cost of research and charge backs to a minimum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c435f5c350f31fd9c7567c22ec82571e", "text": "Obviously, the credit card's administators know who this charge was submitted by. Contact them, tell them that you don't recognize the charge, and ask them to tell you who it was from. If they can't or won't, tell them you suspect fraud and want it charged back, then wait to see who contacts you to complain that the payment was cancelled. Note that you should charge back any charge you firmly believe is an error, if attempts to resolve it with the company aren't working. Also note that if you really ghink this is fraud, you should contact your bank and ask them to issue a new card number. Standard procedures exist. Use them when appropriate.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "898499ec5c013cb2425c03238bfdc185", "text": "Credit card companies organize types of businesses into different categories. (They charge different types of businesses different fees.) When a business first sets up their credit card processing merchant account, they need to specify the category. Here is a list of categories that Visa uses. Grocery stores and supermarkets are category number 5411. Other types of businesses, such as the examples you provided in your question, have a different category number. American Express simply looks at the merchant category code for each of your transactions and only gives you rewards for the ones in the grocery store category. It's all automated. They likely don't have a list of every grocery store in the US, and even if they did, they would probably not provide it to the public, for proprietary reasons. If you are in doubt about whether or not a particular store is in the grocery category, you'll just have to charge it to your card and see what happens. Often, the category of transaction will be shown for each transaction on your credit card's website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6479d2f2685bc1c6a0174388d1d0c22e", "text": "I don't have much to add other than your signature is not required to process a charge. Signatures are kept on file for validity in the event you dispute a charge. Your signature isn't held in some magical database with signature recognition software. If you draw an shark in the signature section of a receipt that won't stop the charge from processing. In fact, many merchants don't even bother requiring the signature below a certain threshold. There are loads of behind the scenes processing improvements offered by the EMV chip; namely prevention of card number skimming and duplication via encrypted transaction signing. While requiring a PIN adds an additional layer of security, simply processing via chip dramatically improves the network fraud prevention tools in a manner that is almost completely transparent to the user. To your point, if your wallet is lost and an imposer holds your physical card there is no anti-fraud improvement. At any rate, you have zero fraud liability in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "229dcdc4c02910101ea85c81c214c263", "text": "\"The statement is (in laymans terms - if not in real terms) correct. Most credit cards (I know this to be true for VISA and Mastercard) have dispute processes and will do a chargeback on the merchant - ie take the money back from the supplier in cases where you don't receive the goods or other fraud - Particularly if they can't produce a signature and (for transactions which are not face-to-face) a tracking number. Your exact rights will vary by bank, but mostly they need to follow the guidelines set by the Credit Card company - and you do need to be a bit careful - if you received goods which were fake or a dispute arises you may be up for shipping the goods back to the merchant - and you have a limited - but reasonable time - in which to make the dispute. (The statement \"\"the money is the banks\"\" is not technically true, there is no money involved until you pay it, only credit [ they are very different, but almost no-one knows that, I communicated with a Minister of Finance on the topic], but this is quite technical and as a layman not something you need to worry about here)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "408321035e37e28e13a3b3933ba797ef", "text": "\"Working retail myself, I do not accept an unsigned card without verification. If I received one I would ask for ID and verify the photo with the Name. I would also let the buyer know it was unsigned and remind them that anyone finding it can sign it and use the card without issue. Putting on the back of the card \"\"SEE ID\"\" is the way buyers have protected themselves from thieves as long as people are actually looking at the cards. How does this protect? 1- a lost card cant be signed by a complete stranger as there is already writing on the card. 2- It provides a photo identification for use. I know with today's technology that this is going away and fewer people are actually checking but shame on those companies who handle the cards and don't look. Obviously this process does not apply to self checks, but safety protocols there require a pin of some form that only the authorized user should know.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd4e136401631719b477bcecbdb36789", "text": "\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fee4c2ada624f9f9dfd3cf43e073b65", "text": "There are different ways of credit card purchase authorizations. if some choose less secure method it's their problem. Merchants are charged back if a stolen card is used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2432ced7c1711f5e0e728728c592a5c", "text": "I'm not sure about the laws in specific states. However it's part of their merchant agreement that they can not charge a fee for a customer paying with credit card. It's also against merchant agreements to require a minimum purchase to use a credit card, although this is less commonly enforced. Apparently (http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html) merchants can offer a cash discount. Offering payment by credit card, though practically a requirement in todays retail environment, is a privilege for the merchant. It's a way of making buying convenient for the customer. As a result, penalizing the customer in any way is not just against their agreement, but rather disingenuous as well. edit: here's a bit more information about what they can and can't do. Amex prohibits discrimination, so if a merchant can't do something to a Visa/MC customer they can't do it to an Amex customer either. http://fso.cpasitesolutions.com/premium/le/06_le_ic/fg/fg-merchants.html", "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": "3e987107dbb4125793c6317940aa88a4", "text": "\"It's anonymous/automated. They don't know who you are, just that customer x1a bought y. If your name isnt given to employees \"\"your\"\" privacy isnt being volated because the dont know its \"\"you.\"\" I imagine the government justifies their intrusions on our digital privacy the same way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd2350e9d1d0244e9c469071fa7541d2", "text": "The signature actually harks back to the days before every business checked every transaction online. When charge cards were introduced modems didn't exist. Nowadays, stolen credit cards are usually reported within 24 hours and the card won't work. Businesses that face low fraud rates don't bother checking. They probably figure that a certain percentage of charges get charged back because the cardholder claims that they didn't make them, and the credit card company usually just passes the cost on to the merchant, so it's really the merchant who should be worried about fraud since he or she is going to pay for it. The real question for the merchant is whether checking signatures actually reduces charge backs. If the credit card is stolen, how hard would it be for thieves to practice the signature on the card a few times until they can reproduce it well enough to fool someone? Businesses that face high fraud rates are often more careful. In New York City, try buying some Nikes on 34th Street, and you'll get your signature checked, your driver's license checked, and they'll call up your 5th grade social studies teacher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4667ca0b508c1213651893932ccb69e", "text": "\"Understood. But based on the OP, it's not categorically clear what they were refusing. If they refused to quote the balance and/or refused to take a phone payment that was otherwise in keeping with the cardholder agreement (i.e., the cardmember called the correct number for phone payments and balance-checking, etc), then yeah, they were not only being unreasonable, but also violating the contract. What I read as ambiguous is whether the cardholder was specifically asking for the *payoff* balance/amount, and whether they were following process for phone-payments and balance-checking, etc. IOW, it's not necessarily \"\"illegal\"\" and might not even be unreasonable for the customer-service number to have different departments for balance-checking and phone-payments versus card-cancellation. It's not falsifiably clear from the OP that the cardholder was not asking the person on the other end of the phone for categorical statements of fact that they were obligated to make. I'm not accusing anyone of lying or saying that the CC company was acting reasonably, I'm just saying that language such as **\"\"They do not provide mid-cycle payoff quotes\"\"** is not evidence that they were doing any kind of funny-business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dce5d31a24c17381a5b1743e3e00d529", "text": "I gather that, while it is not illegal for a merchant to pass their payment card processing fees on to their customers directly in the form of a surcharge, doing so is a violation of their merchant agreements with the payment card processor (at least for Visa/MC). It's not - surcharging has been permissible since 2013, as a result of a class action lawsuit against Visa and MC. It's still prohibited by state law in 9 states. If you're in one of those 9 states, you can contact your state Attorney General to report it. If you're not, you can check to see if the business is complying with the rules set forth by the card brands (which include signage at the point of sale, a separate line item for the surcharge on the receipt, a surcharge that doesn't exceed 4% of the transaction, etc.) and if they're in violation, contact the card company. However, some of those rules seem to matter to the card companies more than others, and it's entirely possible they won't do anything. In which case, there's nothing you can really do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7af83dec07deef1a5cd58c68bc6ad1c", "text": "The truth is that Visa does not require a merchant to enter the cvv number before authorizing a transaction. The only information that is really needed is the credit card number and expiration date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "528c03575fed81c0e5a4cb0ba68313bc", "text": "They specifically state on their website this waiver does not apply to this incident. It only applies to the use of their credit monitoring product. [link to website](https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com/). So basically you can't have identify fraud then blame it on their credit monitoring tool. In this case, Equifax is guilty of several things, not related to this product, so they can't just sneak in a clause like this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea5e79982cd5dc06501658bb7e80c710", "text": "Is this for the US? Or does it apply here in the UK in a general sense? Obviously I think we are using different terms, but this is just a general run down of the different business types really right? I'm wondering if the use of a name thing matters here in the UK or not. I'm happy to trade under my actual name, but would prefer a name for the business that is separate to my own name.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bdb54ca94be1daad39e58cffcc6f6563", "text": "\"It is your choice to have \"\"insignificant income\"\", and that has consequences. One is that you cannot borrow money to purchase a home independent of your credit score. In order to purchase a home you must also have the ability to repay in addition to a good history. IMHO your question suggest that you have a unrealistic outlook on life. If you cannot come up with 10K, how can you afford a home? What happens when the HVAC system goes out? While I certainly hope you meet and exceed your goals, you can change your whole world by simply getting a job at a fast food restaurant. When you are not working you can then do the entrepreneurship thing. Life is often a choice of priorities. If you choose to \"\"back-burner\"\" the entrepreneur dream, for a time, and choose to focus on earning the best possible wage. Then perhaps you could afford to purchase a place of your own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "450c8ae1359a23cf337b1a1817dd9c03", "text": "What options do I have? Realistically? Get a regular full time job. Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home. I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic. Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits. However, I've been at this for quite a few years. So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month. In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts. Also I had about a 30% down payment. This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point. The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8551dc1d527827ddf6696afe51c141f", "text": "You need a cosigner. Someone prepared to repay the mortgager if you should fail to. Needless to say this is going to have to be someone who knows you and trusts you very much. One way is to find someone prepared to share a house with you. Buy a bigger house than you would otherwise need. You would own half each, and the sharing agreement would specify that if one of you defaulted on their payments the other would get a larger share according to how much extra they end up paying. The other way is to find a silent partner, who doesn't live there. They put up no money unless you actually default. They would almost certainly have to be part owners, but you can structure the agreement so that you end up with the whole house if you succeed in paying off the mortgage, or miss no payments until you sell. Parents sometimes do this for their kids.", "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": "6142c2088a28e774dd94f10842b252e7", "text": "To me it sounds like you need to come up with 67K (30+37), part of the time you can work in the current job, part of the time you could work a lower paying part time job (for a year). Lets assume that you can earn 15K for that year, and you can save 5K from your current job. (I'd try and save more, but what ever you can do.) 67 - 15 - 5 = 47 I'd sell the investment property. First you will have some funds to throw at this need, second you expense should go down as you don't have a payment on this property. 47 - 26 = 21 You have 32K in cash which is a lot for someone in your expense range. Six months would be 15K, so I would use some of that cash: 21 - 17 = 4 Now you are really close. If needed I'd use the investments to cover the last 4k or even more of the on hand cash. However, could you do something to reduce that amount further ...like working more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60aa7183387ee773269ce2401430e4b0", "text": "Real Estate is all local. In the United States, I can show you houses so high the rent on them is less than 1/3% of their value per month, eg. $1M House renting for less than $3500. I can also find 3 unit buildings (for say $200K) that rent for $3000/mo total rents. I might want to live in that house, but buy the triplex to rent out. You need to find what makes sense, and not buy out of impulse. A house to live in and a house to invest have two different sets of criteria. They may overlap, but if the strict Price/Rent were universal, there would be no variation. If you clarify your goal, the answers will be far more valuable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b7f66d0deb3fe87aea9a853975b835d", "text": "I'm an Aussie and I purchased 5 of these properties from 2008 to 2010. I was looking for positive cash flow on properties for not too much upfront investment. The USA property market made sense because of the high Aussie $$ at the time, the depressed property market in the US and the expensive market here. I used an investment web-site that allowed me to screen properties by yield and after eliminating outliers, went for the city with the highest consistent yield performance. I settled on Toledo, Ohio as it had the highest yields and was severely impacted by the housing crisis. I bought my first property for $18K US which was a little over $17K AUD. The property was a duplex in great condition in a reasonable location. Monthly rentals $US900 and rents guaranteed and direct deposited into my bank account every month by section 8. Taxes $900 a year and $450 a year for water. Total return around $US8,000. My second property was a short sale in a reasonable area. The asking was $US8K and was a single family in good condition already tenanted. I went through the steps with the bank and after a few months, was the proud owner of another tenanted, positive cash flow property returning $600 a month gross. Taxes of $600 a year and water about the same. $US6K NET a year on a property that cost $AUD8K Third and fourth were two single family dwellings in good areas. These both cost $US14K each and returned $US700 a month each. $US28K for two properties that gross around $US15K a year. My fifth property was a tax foreclosure of a guy with 2 kids whose wife had left him and whose friend had stolen the money to repay the property taxes. He was basically on the bones of his butt and was staring down the barrel of being homeless with two kids. The property was in great condition in a reasonable part of town. The property cost me $4K. I signed up the previous owner in a land contract to buy his house back for $US30K. Payments over 10 years at 7% came out to around $US333 per month. I made him an offer whereby if he acted as my property manager, i would forgo the land contract payments and pay him a percentage of the rents in exchange for his services. I would also pay for any work he did on the properties. He jumped at it. Seven years later, we're still working together and he keeps the properties humming. Right now the AUD is around 80c US and looks like falling to around 65c by June 2015. Rental income in Aussie $$ is around $2750 every month. This month (Jan 2015) I have transferred my property manager's house back to him with a quit claim deed and sold the remaining houses for $US100K After taxes and commission I expect to receive in the vicinity of AUD$120K Which is pretty good for a $AUD53K investment. I've also received around $30K in rent a year. I'm of the belief I should be buying when everybody else is selling and selling when everybody else is buying. I'm on the look-out for my next positive cash flow investment and I'm thinking maybe an emerging market smashed by the oil shock. I wish you all happiness and success in your investment. Take care. VR", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035", "text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e25fcd5b89b415a0f9310d96fdd581a2", "text": "\"Your plan as proposed will not work, because it goes against how banks make money. Banks make money in two ways: (1) Fees [including account fees, investment advice fees, mortgage application fees, etc.]; and (2) Interest Rate Spread. They borrow money for x%, and they lend it out for x+y%. In a simple form, someone gives the bank a deposit, and earns 1%. The bank turns around to the next person in line and loans the money to them for 4%. You are asking them to turn the interest rate spread into a cost instead of their main source of profit: You are asking the bank to borrow money from another person paying them 1.2% interest, and then loan the money to you, paying you 0.6% interest and keeping 0.6% for themselves. The bank would lose money doing this. Technically yes, you can borrow from a bank and invest it in something earning above the 4% interest they will charge you. You can then pay the bank's interest off of your earnings, and make some profit for yourself. BUT this carries an inherent risk: If your investment loses money, you still owe the bank, effectively increasing the negative impact of your investment. This tactic is called \"\"Leveraging\"\"; you can look it up on this site or on google. It is not something you should do if you do not fully understand the risks you are taking on. Given that you are asking this question, I would suggest tactfully that you are not yet well informed enough to make this sort of investment. You run serious risk of losing everything if you over-leverage (assuming the banks will even lend you money in the first place).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b01b8a39d9dcd8a1f2f491f032e31143", "text": "I’m not an expert on the VISA/US tax or insurance, but you're making enough mistakes in terms of all the associated costs involved in owning and renting houses/apartments that this already looks potentially unwise at this stage of your investment career. Renting cheap properties/to students involves the property constantly being trashed, often being empty and requiring extremely close management (which you either have to pay someone a lot to do, or do yourself and lose other potential earning time. If doing yourself you will also make lots of mistakes in the vetting/managing/marketing process etc at first as this is a complex art in itself). Costs on this type of rental can often get as high as 25% a year depending exactly how lucky you get even if you do it all yourself, and will typically be in the 5-15% range every year once everything you have to constantly maintain, replace and redecorate is totalled up. That's all pre what you could be earning in a job etc, so if you could earn a decent clip elsewhere in the same time also have to deduct that lost potential. Send it all to third parties (so all upkeep by hired contractors, all renting by an agency) you will be lucky to even break even off ~15k a year per property rents to students. You’re not seeming to price in any transaction costs, which usually run at ~5% a time for both entrance and exit. Thats between half and one years rent gone from the ten per property on these numbers. Sell before ten is up its even more. On point three, rounding projections in house price rises to one decimal place is total gibberish – no one who actually has experience investing their own money well ever makes or relies on claims like this. No idea on Pittsburgh market but sound projections of likely asset changes is always a ranged and imprecise figure that cannot (and shouldn’t) be counted on for much. Even if it was, it’s also completely unattainable in property because you have to spend so much money on upkeep: post costs and changes in size/standard, house values generally roughly track inflation. Have a look at this chart and play around with some reasonable yearly upkeep numbers and you will see what I mean. Renting property is an absolute graveyard for inexperienced investors and if you don't know the stuff above already (and it's less than 10% of what you need to know to do this profitably vs other uses of your time), you will nearly always be better off investing the money in more passive investments like diversified bonds, REITs and Stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "932da761aed6d1f0a6fa2e8efc6af74f", "text": "If you expect a significant increase in future income, then you should wait until that future income is assured, and then buy based on that decision. Buying more house than you can afford is what caused you to have to sell; you don't want to do that again. Instead of buying more house now, buy the right house for what you have now. Better yet, though, you might rent instead of buying until the future income comes onboard. Then you can get the best of both worlds - you get to buy the house you can afford in a year or two, but also don't overspend your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b74ae43593376c509c0450f1ca4c0e7", "text": "A good quick filter to see if a property is worth looking at is if the total rent for the property for the year is equal to 10% of the price of the property. For example, if the property is valued at $400,000 then the rent collected should be $40,000 for the entire year. Which is $3,333.33 per month. If the property does not bring in at least 10% per year then it is not likely all the payments can be covered on the property. It's more likely to be sinking money into it to keep it afloat. You would be exactly right, as you have to figure in insurance, utilities, taxes, maintenance/repair, mortgage payments, (new roof, new furnace, etc), drywall, paint, etc. Also as a good rule of thumb, expect a vacancy rate of at least 10% (or 1 month) per year as a precaution. If you have money sitting around, look into Real Estate Investment Trusts. IIRC, the average dividend was north of 10% last year. That is all money that comes back to you. I'm not sure what the tax implications are in Australia, however in Canada dividends are taxed very favourably. No mortgage, property tax, tenants to find, or maintenance either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe638c47505fa844419fd4a4523d8fb8", "text": "\"A person can finance housing expenses in one of two ways. You can pay rent to a landlord. Or you can buy a house with a mortgage. In essence, you become your own landlord. That is, insta the \"\"renter\"\" pays an amount equal to the mortgage to insta the \"\"landlord,\"\" who pays it to the bank to reduce the mortgage. Ideally, your monthly debt servicing payments (minus tax saving on interest) should approximate the rent on the house. If they are a \"\"lot\"\" more, you may have overpaid for the house and mortgage. The advantage is that your \"\"rent\"\" is applied to building up equity (by reducing the mortgage) in your house. (And mortgage payments are tax deductible to the extent of interest expense.) At the end of 30 years, or whatever the mortgage term, you have \"\"portable equity\"\" in the form a fully paid house, that you can sell to move another house in Florida, or wherever you want to retire. Sometimes, you will \"\"get lucky\"\" if the value of the house skyrockets in a short time. Then you can borrow against your appreciation. But be careful, because \"\"sky rockets\"\" (in housing and elsewhere) often fall to earth. But this does represent another way to build up equity by owning a house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2347a4ed4cd25bf7adcbdf7126f9d7", "text": "The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow. You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage. Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa65d9878651d74a4fa7628301e0078", "text": "I would not recommend you proceed for the reasons given by others and would recommend focussing on raising your annual income to a point where you are better able to decide whether buying is an option. Given the price of places where you are living and your situation it likely will be some time until buying a place makes sense financially if ever (at those prices I would expect renting makes better sense).", "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": "bffe0c8e40d0f4420e78fcbd9e76bab5", "text": "\"When you compare the costs of paying your current mortgage with the rental income from the flat, you're not really comparing like with like. Firstly, the mortgage payments are covering both interest and capital repayments, so some of the 8k is money that is adding to your net worth. Secondly, the value of the flat (130k) is much more than the outstanding mortgage (80k) so if you did sell the flat and pay off the mortgage, you'd have 50k left in cash that could be invested to provide an income. The right way to compare the two options is to look at the different costs in each scenario. Let's assume the bigger house will cost 425k as it makes the figures work out nicely. If you buy the bigger house with a bigger mortgage, you will need to borrow 50k more so will end up with a mortgage of 130k, and you will still have the 8k/year from the flat. Depending on your other income, you might have to pay tax on the 8k/year - e.g. at 40% if you're a higher-rate taxpayer, leaving you with 4.8k/year. If you sell the flat, you'll have no mortgage repayments to make and no income from the flat. You'll be able to exactly buy the new house outright with the 50k left over after you repay the mortgage, on top of your old house. You'd also have to pay some costs to sell the flat that you wouldn't have to with the bigger mortgage, but you'd save on the costs of getting a new mortgage. They probably aren't the same, but let's simplify and assume they are. If anything the costs of selling the flat are likely to be higher than the mortgage costs. Viewed like that, you should look at the actual costs to you of having a 130k mortgage, and how much of that would be interest. Given that you'll be remortgaging, at current mortgage rates, I'd expect interest would only be 2-3%, i.e around 2.5k - 4k, so significantly less than the income from the flat even after tax. The total payment would be more because of capital repayment, but you could easily afford the cashflow difference. You can vary the term of the mortgage to control how much the capital repayment is, and you should easily be able to get a 130k mortgage on a 425k house with a very good deal. So if your figure of 8k rent is accurate (considering void periods, costs of upkeep etc), then I think it easily makes sense to get the bigger house with the bigger mortgage. Given the tax impact (which was pointed out in a comment), a third strategy may be even better: keep the flat, but take out a mortgage on it in exchange for a reduced mortgage on your main house. The reason for doing it that way is that you get some tax relief on the mortgage costs on an investment property as long as the income from that property is higher than the costs, whereas you don't on your primary residence. The tax relief used to just be at the same tax rate you were paying on the rental income, i.e. you could subtract the mortgage costs from the rental income when calculating tax. It's gradually being reduced so it's just basic rate tax relief (20%) even if you pay higher-rate tax, but it still could save you some money. You'd need to look at the different mortgage costs carefully, as \"\"buy-to-let\"\" mortgages often have higher interest rates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "072657906959afacef76be19931af359", "text": "If you're living in a market where some houses are going for $150K over asking, then you MUST buy before you sell. In a seller's market, you will get multiple offers on your current house when you decide to sell, it will sell for (well) over asking, and you can dictate possession dates. You do not need to worry about selling your own home, if you have a competent realtor. But buying a home is an entirely different story. You may struggle to find something affordable, and there may be multiple buyers each time you decide to make an offer. You may go through this cycle several times over many months before your offer is accepted. You should do this while living in your own home, with the comfort of knowing that you can sell your own home easily at any time, instead of the stress of an imminent closing date on your own home. Or worse, move into rented space or Malvolio's mom's house for months or a year while the market increases by 15% and the houses in your old area are now selling for $100K more than you sold for. Ouch, now you really can't afford to buy what you want, and you may end up buying something equivalent to what you used to own, for more, plus legal, realtor, and land transfer costs. If the closing dates don't align, then bridge. This will only end up costing a few hundred dollars, less than $1K including legal fees (the lawyer will also charge to handle this). But by buying before you sell, you'll easily make up that difference. This advice only applies to hot property markets. I'm not a realtor, just a guy living in the GTA who went through this process last year. Lost out on three offers over 10 months, then bought for asking price on fourth offer (very fortunate), then sold for $90K over asking, then bridged for 2 months. My realtor is awesome and made the process as stress free as it can be. Get a good realtor, start house hunting while preparing your own house for sale, and enjoy the process. Also you should negotiate with your realtor, they may be willing to reduce their commission on your sale if they are also representing you on the purchase. Good luck! P.S. Do not make a contingent offer, and do not accept one. Get your financing in place before you make an offer, and if you are concerned about inspection, you can also do that before the offer, if you act quickly. The inspection will cost ~$500, but it will increase the value of your offer by much more than that since you will be going in without conditions. I spent ~$1,000 on two property inspections on homes I lost out on, and I don't regret it. That is the cost of doing business. The other offers on the home I eventually bought were for significantly more than my offer, but they had conditions. I saved at least $40K by being condition free, and I only spent $1,500 on three property inspections. And, some people will just drop out of the multiple offer scenario when they learn that one of the buyers has done an inspection.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2a2b55a5b15ae9da01086b439d1e60e2", "text": "This may not be entirely scientific, but as a landlord my usual approach is just to do a search for rental properties on Craigslist for comparable homes in the neighborhood. There are all kinds of formulas professional property managers use, but in the end these listings are the ones you are going to be competing with for tenants. Also, it isn't super accurate, but online services like Zillow.com can give you some numbers for rental houses that include those that aren't currently advertising.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "111f2cea2838b7e7938d9cf6d03b3316", "text": "Check out the property websites to get an idea of how much, the property in question, could yield as rent. Most give a range and you can get a good idea of it. Just one example from zoopla. Likewise you can refer mouseprice or rightmove and get yourself an idea. Property websites do a lot of data crunching to do an update, but their figure is only a guide.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "890056f8fb9d2dfe4955991a31f346f2", "text": "Zoopla may not always accurately reflect the market price. Your best bet is to get a quote for local registered) letting agents. That way you know you are close to the real market value. Also, these quotes may come into handy if you have a mortgage on the property. Since most banks will require you to provide proof of rent figures you are projecting by sending in official quotes. Hope this helps..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eac825aebabb072caecfe162adb3f10", "text": "A good way to find the rates of rental prices is to look what other landlords are charging for similar properties in your area. The proper investigation of property rental market should be make by using property listing platforms. The other method is online rent calculator. There are a bunch of them on the Web. Briefly speaking, the rent calculator uses industry data to look at the typical rent you might expect from a property in a post code. Remember that the rent you charge has to be at least equal to the cost of your monthly mortgage bill. When you’re deciding what to charge, don’t forget to factor in an estimate of repair costs, taxes, homeowners association fees and insurance.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "94c395ca34857ffc3bbd9d17f8bc8c7d", "text": "I think you are trying to figure out what will be a break-even rental rate for you, so that then you can decide whether renting at current market rates is worth it for you. This is tricky to determine because future valuations are uncertain. You can make rough estimates though. The most uncertain component is likely to be capital appreciation or depreciation (increase or decrease in the value of your property). This is usually a relatively large number (significant to the calculation). The value is uncertain because it depends on predictions of the housing market. Future interest rates or economic conditions will likely play a major role in dictating the future value of your home. Obviously there are numerous other costs to consider such as maintenance, tax and insurance some of which may be via escrow and included in your mortgage payment. Largest uncertainty in terms of income are the level of rent and occupancy rate. The former is reasonably predictable, the latter less so. Would advise you make a spreadsheet and list them all out with margins of error to get some idea. The absolute amount you are paying on the mortgage is a red herring similar to when car dealers ask you what payment you can afford. That's not what's relevant. What's relevant is the Net Present Value of ALL the payments in relation to what you are getting in return. Note that one issue with assessing your cost of capital is, what's your opportunity cost. ie. if you didn't have the money tied up in real estate, what could you be earning with it elsewhere? This is not really part of the cost of capital, but it's something to consider. Also note that the total monthly payment for the mortgage is not useful to your calculations because a significant chunk of the payment will likely be to pay down principal and as such represents no real cost to you (its really just a transfer - reducing your bank balance but increasing your equity in the home). The interest portion is a real cost to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41dd51abeb0546afc075005553f9f663", "text": "> The paper, which is yet to be published, found that a 10 percent increase in Airbnb listings can create an average 0.39 percent increase in rents and an average 0.64 percent increase in home prices, the Wall Street Journal reported. In the long term, rents and property value go up at the same rate. So if they're saying that one is almost double the other, the margin of error here could be very large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c0f2b4fc4ce9963d3f9157bd0fd33a4", "text": "I would suggest the use of a management company to handle a rental property. They will take care of things like collecting rent, coordinating repairs and all the little things that come up when dealing with a renters. They typically charge a percentage of the rent or a flat fee, so make sure you include that in your rent calculation. You take a little bit of a financial hit, but save a lot of head aches - especially if you decide to acquire multiple properties in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a", "text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "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": "812decada0ce722f70af249736022a63", "text": "If it was me, I would consider selling both properties. Unless of course your renters from the first house are very, very good; and you have a good handy man in the area. Managing real estate from a distance is tricky, and $400 per month is not a lot of wiggle room. You would be taking on a lot of risk with only 40K in the bank, a 200K salary, three mortgages (one likely a jumbo) and a student loan. Yea, if it was me I would sell both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06724d4ce9c252533e99ccea2c29973c", "text": "If I is the initial deposit, P the periodic deposit, r the rent per period, n the number of periods, and F the final value, than we can combine two formulas into one to get the following answer: F = I*(1+r)n + P*[(1+r)n-1]/r In this case, you get V = 1000*(1.05)20 + 100*[(1.05)20-1]/0.05 = 5959.89 USD. Note that the actual final value may be lower because of rounding errors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cccca030cc96b7911b60c0c88ca9027", "text": "The rent will be determined by: the rent being charged on similar houses near you. Your mortgage and other costs (very unfortunately!) have no bearing, at all, on the price you will get.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257c70a9f954a96a7657e3761647efee", "text": "Think carefully about the added expenses. It may still make sense, but it probably won't be as cheap as you are thinking. In addition to the mortgage and property taxes, there is also insurance and building maintenance and repairs. Appliances, carpets, and roofs need to be replaced periodically. Depending on the area of the country there is lawn maintenance and now removal. You need to make sure you can cover the expenses if you are without a tenant for 6 months or longer. When tenants change, there is usually some cleaning and painting that needs to be done. You can deduct the mortgage interest and property taxes on your part of the building. You need to claim any rent as income, but can deduct the other part of the mortgage interest and taxes as an expense. You can also deduct building maintenance and repairs on the rental portion of the building. Some improvements need to be depreciated over time (5-27 years). You also need to depreciate the cost of the rental portion of the building. This basically means that you get a deduction each year, but lower the cost basis of the building so you owe more capital gains taxes when you sell. If you do this, I would get a professional to do your taxes at least the first year. Its not hard once you see it done, but there are a lot of details and complications that you want to get right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "839bca2b1ee5694acef25c021fb0d2a7", "text": "As has been mentioned, it's largely up to the landlord. I'm in Texas, USA, and my landlord's payment service permits it, but they charge an exorbitant fee of 22% plus 0.50 in order to do so. My rent is $895/month. If I chose to use a credit card, I pay $1092.40. The miles aren't worth that kind of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef064ae7e68cf30d539f1a7323d318ef", "text": "\"In addition to Alex B's excellent overview, I'd like to add a few more bits of advice. First of all, one term you should know is \"\"commercial real estate\"\" - which is precisely what this is. There is a business element, but it is strictly (and almost entirely) intertwined to the underlying real estate, which makes this a special category of business which is generally considered simply \"\"commercial real estate\"\" (just like office buildings, shopping malls, etc). All real estate and businesses value are based on alternatives - what other options are there? In appraisal, these are generally called \"\"comparables\"\". A professional appraiser is generally available for commercial real estate of this type. While a full, official commercial appraisal can run into the thousands, many/most (all?) appraisers are willing to sell you a simplified version of their service, which can be called a \"\"letter of opinion\"\" and can help you get an idea for the market price (what other similar commercial properties are running for). A loan company would strictly require this, but if you are thinking of an all cash or form of seller-financing this would technically be optional. Your best bet is to read about some of what is involved in commercial real estate appraisal and evaluation, and you may even want to speak with commercial loan officers - even if you don't know that you want to get a loan to acquire the property! It's their job to help inform you about what is required and what they look for, so they can be a potential resource beyond your own research as well. With this said, the only way to estimate value (and, conveniently, the best way) is to look at other properties! And by \"\"others\"\", I mean that you should really not consider buying absolutely anything until you've viewed at least 6-10 other options in some depth - and you probably want to double or triple that number if you are looking to make this the last big business transaction of your life. If you don't you'll be relying on little more than dumb luck to carry you through - which in this area of business, you don't want to do because the dollar amounts and liabilities involved can bankrupt you in no time flat. With that general advice out of the way, here's a tiny nutshell version of valuation of commercial real estate. There are a few key parts involved in commercial real estate: land, improvements (buildings, docks, stuff like that), income, and wages. Land: the value of the land is based upon what you could sell it for, as-is. That is to say - who else might want it? This alone has many important factors, such as zoning laws, the neighborhood (including your neighbors), water/utilities, pacts on the land (someone may have insisted the land not be paved into a parking lot, or really anything like that), alternative uses (could you put a golf course on it, or is the land suitable for a big building or farming?), etc. And is this in a growing area, where you might hope the value will increase over the next decade, or decrease, or basically stay flat (and possibly cause losses compared to inflation)? Improvements: anything on the land is both an asset and a liability. It's an asset because it could add to the value of the land, but it might also reduce the land value if it interferes with alternate land uses. It's a liability, both in the legal sense and in that it requires maintenance. If you want to rent them out, especially, that means concern about any foundations involved, termites, roofs, sewage/septic tanks, utilities that are your responsibility (pipes, poles, wires), as well as any sort of ac/heating you may have, docks, and so on. These things are rarely free and absolutely can eat you alive. Income: Ah, the best part, the constant influx of cash! But wait, is it a constant influx? Some businesses are purely seasonal (summer only, winter only), some are year-round but have peak times, and others don't really have a \"\"peak\"\" to speak of. If you are renting, are there issues collecting, or with people over-staying? How about damage, making a mess, getting rowdy and disturbing others? Regardless, there is obviously some income, and this is usually the most dangerous part of the equation. I say \"\"dangerous\"\", because people absolutely lie like dogs on this part, all the time. It's easy to cook the books, assuming they even attempt to keep proper books in the first place! Businesses of this form often have a lot of cash business that's easy to hide (from Uncle Sam, or sometimes even the owners themselves if there are employees involved) - and fake! And some people are just shoddy bookkeepers and the info is just wrong. But, there will clearly be some kind of yearly income involved. What does this matter? Well...how much is there? How much is tied to the owners (personal friends do business and they will leave if the ownership/management changes)? In commercial real estate the income will be calculated for a fiscal year, and then there is something called a \"\"multiple\"\", which is market dependent. Let's say the whole place takes in $100k in rent a year. As part of buying this business, you are buying not just assets, but expected future income. In some commercial areas the multiple is as little as .5 to 2 - which means that the going rate is about 6-24 months worth of income, as part of the purchase price. So with 100k rent a year, that means 50k-200k of the purchase price is attributable to the income of the business. And if business is half of what you thought it would be? That means the net value of the whole enterprise decreases by 25k-100k - on top of the reduced income every year you own it! Income provides cash flow, which should pay all the expenses (cleaning up from wind storms, replacing windows that are broken, hauling off trash, replacing a well that ran dry), and then the extra that remains is positive cash flow. If you take out a loan, then ideally the cash flow would also pay that completely so long as you don't have any big unexpected expenses in the year - and still have some left over for yourself. Wages: Well, that money doesn't collect itself! There's sales, keeping the books, collecting the rent, performing maintenance, customer service, cleaning, paying the bills, keeping the insurance people happy, handling emergencies, and everything else involved with running the business. Someone is going to do it, and the biggest error people make here is not to put any value on their time - and to make it so they can never afford to take a vacation again! Pay yourself, and give yourself the flexibility to pay others when you can't (or don't want) to do it all yourselves. So, what's the point of all this? How do you actually make any money? In two ways: 1) selling the whole thing later, and 2) cash flow. For 1, it's important that you not be in a situation where you are betting that in the future there will be a \"\"person richer, and dumber, than I am now\"\". If the current owner wanted 2 million, then 1 mil, then less, over multiple years...this suggests either he is delusional about the value of his place (and most property owners are), or that its actually hard to find a buyer for such a business. You are going to want to make sure you understand why that is, because most of the value of real estate is...well, in the real estate itself! For 2, you need cash coming in that's considerably more than the cost of running the place. Also, cash flow can strongly change the value of the business for resale (depending on the multiple, this can make a huge difference or prevent you from selling the thing at all). You mentioned you want to put in more cabins, more marketing/sales efforts, etc. That's great, but first, that would mean added investment beyond the purchase price. Is it legally and physically practical to add more cabins, and what is their current utilization rate? If they are only renting 10% of their current capacity, increasing capacity may be premature. This will also vary through the year, so you may find there is a problem with being sold out sometimes...but only for a small percentage of the time. Which means you'll be adding buildings only to have them used for a fraction of the year, which will be very hard to make a profit from. If cash flow is good, ideally even being enough to cover a loan payment to help cover the purchase price (and remember that commercial real estate loans are much smaller loan-to-value ratios than in residential real estate), there is one final barrier to making money: the damn non-regular maintenance! Roofs, wells, and wooden walls all have a sad tendency to cost you nothing right up until the point they cost you $30k+ on a single day. Is there enough cash flow to make these sort of certainties (and if you plan to be there for years, they are a certainty) not put you in the poor house? This was rather long, but I hope this overview helps you appreciate all that you'll need to look into and be cautious of during your future en-devour! Commercial real estate is generally costly and high-risk, but also can be high reward. You'll need to compare many opportunities before you can get a \"\"feel\"\" for what is a good deal and what is a terrible one. You'll need to consider many factors, such as resale value and cash flow/income (which they will have to tell you and you can assume is not true, due to ignorance or malice), as well as maintenance and liabilities, before you can begin to really estimate the value of an enterprise of this sort. There are people who can help you, like appraisers and commercial brokers, but ultimately you'll need to do a lot of research and comparisons yourself to help you make a good decision. Finally, there is no very simple method for evaluating commercial real estate value. You need a variety of information, and you must be skeptical of what you are told because of the very large sums of money involved. It is doable (lots of people do it), but you must take care and do your due diligence so you don't get bankrupted by a single bad purchase.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af327322384aaf1fb4808ed9b4adc50d", "text": "Another option is to look at the rent difference between where you need to be and where the others would rent, without considering your job. You pay the difference, which is due to your unique requirements, and split the remainder equally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954c914af462d734b6ed93d025097d44", "text": "Something that you omitted in your question is whether this prospective purchase is a single family residence (SFR) or some other type of real property. If this is an investment purchase as you say it is, then the only real way to tell it is worth what you are willing to pay is based on the income it produces. Once you complete an income and expense analysis you can get a CAP rate to compare it to other like properties in the area. This is the best way to value income/investment real estate. If you don't know what a CAP rate is and how to calculate it, then you might be over your head a bit. Another important aspect to consider is the reason to pay all cash for this property. The main reason to invest in real estate is to use the banks money as leverage. Again, you should understand these kinds of basic real estate concepts before you dive into purchasing investment property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1018d9e6c1f99370dcffd85bd768bfaf", "text": "To your secondary question: Appropriately consider all estimated numbers involved with keeping the house compared to your closest estimate of what the home could sell for. Weigh out the pros and cons yourself as a stranger will not be able to 100% appreciate what you value and dislike. Remember to include insurances, taxes, HOA(s), and the actual mortgage payment. Depending on how you also plan to rent out the property, include whichever utilities you intend to cover (if any). There will also be costs for property management and upkeep as things will break overtime and tenants will not hesitate to get you (or your management) to fix them, either way that means you are paying. I would also keep in mind while homes typically appreciate in value there is a higher risk with tenants for the value to depreciate to damages and poor upkeep. There are increased legal risks to renting, so be sure you have properly vetted whichever management you are going with. In extreme circumstances you also could be required to retain an attorney to defend yourself again litigation because whichever management team you hire will most likely defend themselves and not include you in that umbrella. My family lives in the LA area as well and a judge refused to throw out an obvious frivolous suit when my parents attempted to rent out a house. The possible renters after signing the main paperwork never showed to finish a second set of documents for renting. Parents immediately declined to rent to these people as they missed something so important without any explanation and they sued claiming racism, emotional damages, and some other really crazy things despite my parents never having met them (first meeting was between property management and renters only). Personally and professionally, I would only suggest renting our the place and not selling if you can turn a profit after all the above mentioned costs. If renters are only paying to keep the property in the black you have yourself a non-earning asset which WILL be damaged over time and require repairs which will come out of your pocket. Also, while the property is unoccupied you also must remember it is not earning at that time. Much of this may sound obvious, overcautious, etc... I simply wish to provide my family's experience to help you in making your decisions. Best of luck with your endeavor. Edit: Also, you will be required to report all earned rental income on your taxes. They will fall under the Schedule E and possibly K-1 area. I would strongly recommend consulting with an actual accountant about the impacts to you.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8ee780dd1a6ef64417b8857af8fb420c", "text": "As long as your money is green and you aren't buying something prohibited to youngsters (booze, cigarettes, etc.) I doubt any store is going to refuse your business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f511c3683463a075319f88336ebbc10e", "text": "My 12 year old routinely makes purchases with cash or a gift card (either a store's card or a Visa/Amex card that acts like credit card but is a gift card) and has never had an issue. Clothing, make-up, bath items, etc. I understand in some areas you need to be over 18 to buy certain markers, spraypaint, or other propellant items that can be fatal if inhaled. I see little issue with buying pet supplies, but it wouldn't hurt to have your sibling nearby if you think there will be an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e5dfe901f951e979eebb46132d0d825", "text": "I had a cat growing up--most of the time I was the one who got her supplies. It was never an issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78c3c281bc43a0ee800cf0ed3fa83b0c", "text": "Perhaps a technicality, but minors do not have the legal capacity to bind a contract. Making a purchase from a store is a contract. I'm not a lawyer and there may be case law to the contrary or that creates exceptions, but my understanding is that purchases made by a minor may be void if later challenged. JohnFx's answer is true from a practical sense. But if you get turned away at a store, understand that they're probably just being careful to avoid headaches later.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f0f03a51195c7a3e05197239cbb59377", "text": "Buy something from Nordstrom, then return it and ask for cash. They may ask for your ID. Nordstrom's return policies are very lax and they will almost always give cash when asked for, sometimes even if you don't have the receipt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6ae13b427fba3e6897c8e3f4b0c6203", "text": "We were members at costco, but decided not to renew. Meat was a definite cost savings, and laundry detergent as well. Diapers used to be a huge savings, but loblaws seems to be pricing things better now. We did by a bunch of Kirkland brand diapers and wipes before the membership ended. The problem we had was that you just get too much stuff - you save a bunch on that laundry detergent that you buy once every two years, or the chicken you have in your freezer forever. In Canada, the basic membership is $55 and we could not be certain we made that back, nor that we weren't over consuming as we walked the aisles. I have heard that the more expensive membership ($100) which gives you 2% back on purchases is a good way to gauge your usage and determine if it is worth it. It also costs nothing to give it a try - their policy is a full refund at any time, so in theory you could go in on your 364th day and get a refund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5589bc8e25b7c082c1dc2a97a160968e", "text": "The last thing I bought there was a barbecue for my dad. I needed two accessories that were on display with it as well, but they didn't carry them instore. So I had to go online to order them... from two different places. And one of the part numbers I was given didn't match anything, so I had to call on the phone and spend about 15 minutes with someone figuring it out. It was a less than stellar experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9af8ae6ec87a10fb8408774f33346f", "text": "I don't know if BJ's or Costco is by you, but sharing a membership can make sense. Not just the annual fee, but splitting certain items that are just too big. The 20 pack of batteries, the 30lb sacks of potatoes, etc. Anything you look at and realize you won't use it before it goes bad or have no place to store it. Size is one objection I hear regarding the warehouse stores and a splitting buddy can help. To James' point - Yes, kids are cruel. We live in a nice area, and I pride myself on driving the cheapest car on the street. In the last two years, two neighbors (of 8 of us on this cul-de-sac) have downsized. They needed to take the difference and use it for college tuition. I explained to my daughter, when you see a kid in a big house, you don't know two key things: how big their mortgage is, and how much have they saved for college/retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f12914ef0cf724285d65f57f5c65ee", "text": "I shop at Sears because of the enormous section of hardware parts. You can find almost any bolt,screw,connector, etc for any DIY project. Nothing online compares to being able to go to the hardware section only with an idea and piecing it together with the parts at hand. Also, I'm 35.", "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": "a7fd9f08c7784ffafdfbec03796c03d1", "text": "Your parents are troopers (pooper troopers?). Nothing in our area was affordable for those services so we tried the clean-your-own kind - they were really nice and probably would help potty train but seriously a few months of scraping poop into the trash and washing a bucket of smelly diapers got old quiiiiiick! I will say this - the kind you clean yourself is the absolute cheapest option. It was like $300 for a half week supply of cloth diapers so you're doing diaper laundry twice a week and the only other added cost is the special detergent which was pretty cheap and lasted a long time... Then we sold them used on eBay for $200 and bought the next size up when it was time which was like 2 months later (they snap to multiple sizes)... Rinse and repeat - works out pretty well if you're willing to commit to washing poop cloth twice a week. And 3 months of honest diapers is around $300 I think.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b77d8502335f3b8b8ed6d68bb3669ea", "text": "Make sure your handling the legal side of things. At your age, at least in the US usually, your parents are the one responsible for things like contracts and such. You can't legally get into contracts on your own and if your going to go into business, even at your age, a contract of work should be a must.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b88f011e80981c6d7b69bdd61da050e6", "text": "\"If you're under 18 there's not much you can do. As a minor, your kinda just stuck. There are routes to go, but not many. If you're over 18, here's what you can do. Now these steps won't help you not anger your mother. They're \"\"what you can do\"\" but it doesn't mean you \"\"should\"\". Keep in mind that it might be better just to have a conversation. In that conversation, if you think you need to say, \"\"I will file a complaint with the FBI, and have you arrested if you don't stop! You're breaking the law and invading my privacy.\"\" Again these are drastic steps to take. More moderate steps may be advisable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eca1589f556ec5c6b248b677962048d5", "text": "I can deal with the sometimes human trash that shops there, the screaming and running kids...and even the somewhat messy isles. For me, it comes down to two things: 1. Language barrier. If you are going to have staff on the floor, they need to be able to speak and understand English. This is an uncomfortable criticism, I know, but it is real. 2. Staff lack of knowledge of the products they sell. Reading the description on the tag of two different items does not help me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaab9bd2b0cb3f917a3cf78a945a3545", "text": "Our Website : http://www.inglewoodarena.com/ The Forum loves children, but asks that you check the age minimum on the event you are attending prior to buying tickets. If children are allowed, those under two attend for free but must remain on a ticket-holders lap. Any strollers must be collapsible and stored beneath seat. Service Pets are happily accepted but must remain in the seating area with their human, harnessed or leashed. The Forum Inglewood strongly encourages Animal Access card photo IDs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e96a248e0185b8c754ebc2925ba34621", "text": "\"If you're in the US then no. You cannot enter a binding contract therefore you will not get a loan from a bank. Cosigner or no cosigner, anything to do with a loan and a bank will not involve you. Your parents can get a loan, then they can give you the money, then you can pay them for their payments, but none of that means the loan has anything to do with you. It's their loan, if they default it's on them. Given your age, you probably will ignore everyone else's advice here about this trip being a bad idea if you can't afford it, but you should reconsider it. You will be paying for this trip long after the fun and excitement has worn off. This is the cycle that sends alot of families into bankruptcy, and it's a horrible habit to learn so young. \"\"Loan\"\" shouldn't even be in your vocabulary dealing with anything other than a library book.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51c59aa3d9076346ca2df12daa9c1422", "text": "Fair enough, do what you want, but the issue is that the physical store is providing you with valuable services that you are taking advantage of (you get to see the shoes before you buy them, try them on, get advice from employees, etc.) without paying for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ede77e1d457e70fd95473a2bf510101c", "text": "Customers also have different needs and the more extreme the need, the more likely they're going to rate you. So even if you completely fulfill a customer's need, unless it was an extreme need or they were in a predefined emotional state, you're not likely to get a review. As an example, we used to actually fix things at our Radio Shack, with solder and such. In store. A FEW people would give us feedback about that. We were also allowed leeway on what we could take for returns (receipt, 30 day limit, etc.). So if the customer came in and started telling me how our products sucked, and they were calling the BBB it's unlikely they would receive the queen bee treatment. They also gave reviews (Yelp wasn't around at the time). In short, despite the fact we gave the vast majority of our customers way above par treatment, the people most likely to give reviews were self-entitled pissants. Despite what people say about turning customers around (from angry to nice), this only happened with maybe 1 out of every 5 pissy customers. Another two would probably be shown to be attempting to scam the store in some manner and a fourth would likely have to be shown the door.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f688eb3dbae48ce79d34ffed10bd9a9", "text": "It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank. Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved. Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents: how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22a9c5d62d95ba6d72274bffda89c476", "text": "A per diem payment is a cost of doing business for the company, not for you. They can claim it (probably); you can't (definitely).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d658c3ec1d9279c81cc4cf3a58c86168", "text": "\"Short answer: Yes. For Federal income tax purposes, you are taxed on your total income, adding up positives and negatives. If business A made, say, $100,000 while business B lost $20,000, then your total income is $80,000, and that's what you'll be taxed on. As @littleadv says, of course any business losses you claim must qualify as business losses under IRS rules. And yes, there are special rules about losses that the IRS considers \"\"passive\"\". If you have wage income in addition to business income, business losses don't offset wage income for social security and medicare tax purposes. You can't get a refund of the social security tax deducted from your paycheck. I don't know if this is relevant to you, but: If you have businesses in different states, each is taxed by that state. For example I have two tiny side businesses, one in Michigan and one in Ohio. Last year the Michigan business made money while the Ohio business lost money. So my federal income was Michigan minus Ohio. My Ohio income was negative so I owed no Ohio income tax. But I couldn't subtract my Ohio losses from my Michigan income for Michigan income tax purposes. Thus, having, say, $10,000 income in Michigan and $10,000 in Ohio would result in lower taxes than $30,000 income in Michigan and a $10,000 loss in Ohio, even though the total income in both cases is the same. And this would be true even if the tax rates in both states were identical.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26ce60fef4f08824a11abf3f8009ba3b", "text": "The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d749496b9ff44a719a74325995016634", "text": "If the employer provides housing to the employee, the employer has to identify whether it is taxable or not. If it is - the amounts would be added to the taxable income on your W2. All the withholding and FICA tax calculations will be performed based on that taxable income. If the employer fails to do that, and you get audited, you can be left on the hook for the unpaid taxes on the unreported income. In some cases, employee housing is a non-taxable fringe benefit, in others it is taxable. Your tax adviser will help identify which case applies to you. After you added in a comment that you're trying to see if you should be asking your boss to pay your personal expenses vs. giving you a raise - as I said in the comments, your personal expenses are not deductible neither for you nor for anyone else. If your boss pays your rent instead of a raise - its taxable income for you.", "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": "865615acb30248354ccda7ef4be8a01b", "text": "\"I've been in a very similar situation to yours in the past. Since the company is reimbursing you at a flat rate (I assume you don't need to provide documentation/receipts in order to be paid the per diem), it's not directly connected to the $90 in expenses that you mention. Unless they were taking taxes out that would need to be reimbursed, the separate category for Assets:Reimbursable:Gotham City serves no real purpose, other than to categorize the expenses. Since there is no direct relationship between your expenses and the reimbursement, I would list them as completely separate transactions: Later, if you needed to locate all of the associated expenses with the Gotham trip, gnucash lets you search on memo text for \"\"Gotham\"\" and will display all of the related transactions. This is a lot cleaner than having to determine what piece of the per diem goes to which expenses, or having to create a new Asset account every time you go on a trip.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2872c54aa6d39f2befbdf243277e0511", "text": "\"On thing the questioner should do is review the Summary Plan Description (SPD) for the 401(k) plan. This MAY have details on any plan imposed limits on salary deferrals. If the SPD does not have sufficient detail, the questioner should request a complete copy of current plan document and then review this with someone who knows how to read plan documents. The document for a 401(k) plan CAN specify a maximum percentage of compensation that a participant in the 401(k) plan can defer REGARDLESS of the maximum dollar deferral limit in Internal Revenue Code Section 402(g). For example, the document for a 401(k) plan can provide that participants can elect to defer any amount of their compensation (salary) BUT not to exceed ten percent (10%). Thus, someone whose salary is $50,000 per year will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $5,000. Someone making $150,000 will effectively be limited to deferring, at most, $15,000. This is true regardless of the fact that the 2013 dollar limit on salary deferrals is $17,500. This is also true regardless of whether or not a participant may want to defer more than ten percent (10%) of compensation. This \"\"plan imposed\"\" limit on salary deferral contributions is permissible assuming it is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner. This plan imposed limit is entirely separate from any other rules or restrictions on salary deferral amounts that might be as a result of things like the average deferral percentage test.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1a358c98a0b9f7c9d1d3a1525349a4", "text": "\"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec21364d60e47dc92323262e60451433", "text": "It's legal. In fact, they are required to do this, assuming you are in fact a HCE (highly compensated employee) to avoid getting in trouble with the IRS. I'm guessing they don't provide documentation for the same reason they don't explain to you explicitly what the income thresholds are for social security taxes, etc - that's a job for your personal accountant. Here's the definition of a HCE: An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015, 2016 or 2017), and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when ranked by compensation. There are rules the restrict distributions from plans like 401ks. For example, treasury reg 1.401a(4)-5(b)(3) says that a plan cannot make a distribution to a HCE if that payment reduces the asset value of the plan to below 110% of the value of the plan's current liabilities. So, after taking account all distributions to be made to HCEs and the asset value of the plan, everyone likely gets proportionally reduced so that they don't run afoul of this rule. There are workarounds for this. But, these are options that the plan administrators may take, not you. I suppose if you were still employed there and at a high enough level, a company accountant would have discussed these options with you. Note, there's a chance there's some other limitation on HCEs that I'm missing which applies to your specific situation. Your best bet, to understand, is simply ask. Your money is still there, you just can't get it all this year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d137f8ba2fc7c051f2118309f7059b59", "text": "There is no such thing as double taxation. If you pay tax in the US, you CAN claim tax credits from India tax authority. For example, if you pay 100 tax in USA and your tax liability in India is 200, then you will only pay 100 (200 India tax liability minus 100 tax credits on foreign tax paid in the USA). This is always true and not depending on any treaty. If there is a treaty, the tax rate in the United States is set on the treaty and you CAN claim that final tax rate based upon that treaty. If you operate an LLC, and the income is NOT derived from United States and you have no ties with the US and that LLC is register to a foreign person (not company but a real human) then you will not have to submit tax return in the US... I advice you to read this: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98277,00.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "200f8c5f2b1d4a058debac7f16934960", "text": "\"I think you may have a significant misunderstanding here. You have been renting your property out for two years, now. There is no special \"\"roommate\"\" clause in the tax code; roommates are renters, and the rent they pay is rental income. (If they were roommates in a property you both rented from a third party, that would be different.) See publication 527, chapter 4 for more details on the subject (search on \"\"Renting Part of Property\"\"). You should be: You may also consider \"\"Not renting for profit\"\" section, which may be closer to what you're actually thinking - of changing from \"\"Renting not for profit\"\" to \"\"Renting for profit\"\". Not rented for profit means you can report on your 1040 as opposed to filing Schedule E, but it does mean you have to actually not make a profit (and remember, some of the money that goes to paying the mortgage is not deductible on this side of things since it's your property and you'll get that money back, presumably, when you sell it). If that is what you're asking about, it sounds like it's just a matter of money. Are you going to start making money? Or, are you going to start making enough significant upgrades/etc. to justify the tax deduction? You should consider the actual, specific numbers carefully, probably with the help of a CPA who is familiar with this sort of situation, and then make the decision that gives you the best outcome (keeping in mind that there may be long-term impacts of switching from not-for-profit to for-profit rental treatment).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7dda4d298962e5676469e1351ccb15d", "text": "\"Some of the 45,000 might be taxable. The question is how was the stipend determined. Was it based on the days away? The mile driven? The cities you worked in? The IRS has guidelines regarding what is taxable in IRS Pub 15 Per diem or other fixed allowance. You may reimburse your employees by travel days, miles, or some other fixed allowance under the applicable revenue procedure. In these cases, your employee is considered to have accounted to you if your reimbursement doesn't exceed rates established by the Federal Government. The 2015 standard mileage rate for auto expenses was 57.5 cents per mile. The rate for 2016 is 54 cents per mile. The government per diem rates for meals and lodging in the continental United States can be found by visiting the U.S. General Services Administration website at www.GSA.gov and entering \"\"per diem rates\"\" in the search box. Other than the amount of these expenses, your employees' business expenses must be substantiated (for example, the business purpose of the travel or the number of business miles driven). For information on substantiation methods, see Pub. 463. If the per diem or allowance paid exceeds the amounts substantiated, you must report the excess amount as wages. This excess amount is subject to income tax with-holding and payment of social security, Medicare, and FUTA taxes. Show the amount equal to the substantiated amount (for example, the nontaxable portion) in box 12 of Form W-2 using code “L\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db8344437995d7d7ef05aa29fe18db47", "text": "Sorry, it appears not, according to http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2008/508/perspectives/p12.htm: ...and the election to make Roth 401(k) contributions (these are after-tax contributions) is irrevocable. Fairmark says the same thing. PS, don't complain too loudly, given the reason for the problem. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc8ee0ee14f8580c8135d7bc6380c9e0", "text": "The Cayman Islands has an income tax enacted, it is just currently 0%. It raises revenues from its tourism, import duties, and business registration. It is part of the UK commonwealth and therefore enjoys the military protection of that federation, but doesn't have to spend on it. But unlike the US, the UK does not have an umbrella federal income tax on its overseas territories, so the Cayman Islands doesn't have to pass that down to its citizens nor do its citizens/residents have to be encumbered by one. It was not taxed by the King when it was first incorporated (hm, might need to fact check that). They also didn't go to war with the king over some small tax, so they got treated differently than some other North American colonies you might think of. The Cayman Islands is not the only government that raises revenues this way. Delaware also has a 0% income tax and raises the majority of its revenues on business registration (and perpetual franchise taxes on those businesses), allowing it to spare its citizens from passive income taxes. But unlike a US state, a citizen or business in a UK overseas territory does not have federal regulatory overhead, making it more attractive as a worldwide financial center.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b41a23be2e99ccd466f0ddb5b967ce6b", "text": "The argument seems to derive from the fact that state law bars cities from taxing net income. Hence the city is arguing it doesn't apply to gross income. Of course the city would also have to argue that income isn’t property. I don't think it's going to work out for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5923619c7a3b18fc6934a3f2d6b95dc8", "text": "You will not necessarily incur a penalty. You can potentially use the Annualized Income Installment method, which allows you to compute the tax due for each quarter based on income actually earned up to that point in the year. See Publication 505, in particular Worksheet 2-9. Form 2210 is also relevant as that is the form you will use when actually calculating whether you owe a penalty after the year is over. On my reading of Form 2210, if you had literally zero income during the first quarter, you won't be expected to make an estimated tax payment for that quarter (as long as you properly follow the Annualized Income Installment method for future quarters). However, you should go through the calculations yourself to see what the situation is with your actual numbers.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f1be9d7231a61302958e09ca27c1c4fe", "text": "The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51328a301d4669335b4e1106f2a1a7dc", "text": "Apparently Canadians have not been paying any tax on Uber rides, and will only begin to do so on July 1, 2017. Source: http://mobilesyrup.com/2017/03/22/uber-canada-gst-hst-budget-2017/", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ed9e547c7fe50befd984c0eaa6a63f05", "text": "The best way to do this is to pay for the entire car, including gas, insurance, and repairs, from S-corp funds, then meticulously track how many miles are used for personal and how many miles for business. If you pay with S-corp funds, you will claim the personal miles as a taxable benefit from the S-corp on your personal return. The S-corp can then claim all the expenses and depreciation on the vehicle, reducing the S-corp's tax liability.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9b14590f5f078d5cf8ba640325c7ff0", "text": "\"Yes, they are. Ridesharing is just a term for Unmarked taxi booked through app. I have no issue with that, since \"\"Government regulated taxi\"\" is so awful in almost every city on earth, that ridesharing has improved safety and convenience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "798170778594d0e501f31a16af9790d5", "text": "\"Reimbursements for business expenses are generally not taxable, but the commute from home to the job and back is not considered business travel and if they're paying for that it is taxable income. I don't think carpooling changes that, but I am not a tax lawyer or accountant. The rest of your questions seem to be company policy issues. There is no \"\"should\"\" here. You aren't required to pick up the other guys, but he isn't required to reimburse those miles (or employ you) so think carefully about your priorities before pushing back. Never invoke what thou canst not banish.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fac14afc592b93b8ce9f478f10e9464", "text": "I really appreciate the long response! You clearly have more knowledge than me in regards to the finance end of the business. That said, is there so much money/debt tied up in taxi licenses and medallions that it would create even a mini financial market crash? If so, how would we (investors) profit from the situation?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "865615acb30248354ccda7ef4be8a01b", "text": "\"I've been in a very similar situation to yours in the past. Since the company is reimbursing you at a flat rate (I assume you don't need to provide documentation/receipts in order to be paid the per diem), it's not directly connected to the $90 in expenses that you mention. Unless they were taking taxes out that would need to be reimbursed, the separate category for Assets:Reimbursable:Gotham City serves no real purpose, other than to categorize the expenses. Since there is no direct relationship between your expenses and the reimbursement, I would list them as completely separate transactions: Later, if you needed to locate all of the associated expenses with the Gotham trip, gnucash lets you search on memo text for \"\"Gotham\"\" and will display all of the related transactions. This is a lot cleaner than having to determine what piece of the per diem goes to which expenses, or having to create a new Asset account every time you go on a trip.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e2e82582aad3b282c8ed97bf42cf423", "text": "One important thing though, while the experience is generally 90% the same to the rider, drivers may have vastly different experiences with the two companies. As long as there are fares to pick up drivers will probably still drive for a service, but that is another, secondary demographic of users that ride sharing companies need to consider/support/keep happy. And that side of things can have a *hugely* varying user experiences based on how the companies operate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d3077586f1ca10a37851e7b9c4f23a8", "text": "\"It looks like the HST will be in effect in Ontario on July 1st, 2010. As to whether it will replace GST with HST for all services, it looks like some sectors may get special treatment: Ontario may exempt mutual funds from HST (National Post). But it doesn't look final yet. However, I would suggest that most service-based businesses in Ontario need to prepare to start charging 13% HST instead of 5% GST. It will be the law. On the \"\"goods\"\" side of the new harmonized tax, it looks like certain goods will still be exempt from the provincial portion. Here's a quote from the Ontario Budget 2009 News Release: \"\"Books, diapers, children's clothing and footwear, children's car seats and car booster seats, and feminine hygiene products would be exempt from the provincial portion of the single sales tax.\"\" Here's some additional information on the introduction of the HST, from the province: General Transitional Rules for Ontario HST. And finally, another interesting article from the Ottawa Business Journal: Preparing For Ontario Sales Tax Harmonization – It's Not Too Early UPDATE: I just received an insert from Canada Revenue Agency included with my quarterly GST statement. Titled \"\"Harmonization of the Sales Tax in Ontario and British Columbia\"\", it contains a section titled \"\"What this means for you\"\" (as in, you the business owner). Here's an excerpt: [...] All Ontario and B.C. registrants would need to update their accounting and point-of-sale systems to accomodate the change in rate and new point-of-sale rebates for the implementation date of July 1, 2010. The harmonization of the sales tax in Ontario and B.C. may affect the filing requirements of registrants outside of these two provinces. Registrants will report their HST according to their current GST filing frequency. As a result of the harmonization, there will be changes to the rebates for housing and public service bodies. More information will be released as it becomes available. Visit the CRA web site often, at www.cra.gc.ca/harmonization, for the most up-to-date information on the harmonization of the sales tax and how it may affect you. [...] Last, I found some very detailed information on the HST here: NOTICE247 - Harmonized Sales Tax for Ontario and British Columbia - Questions and Answers on General Transitional Rules for Personal Property and Services. Chances are anything you want to know is in there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd32fe9ac63a48f7adcb39dea2923ad9", "text": "I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edcc0906cab85e7fb383412944be83d2", "text": "Hourly rate is not the determinant. You could be selling widgets, not hours. Rather, there's a $30,000 annual revenue threshold for GST/HST. If your business's annual revenues fall below that amount, you don't need to register for GST/HST and in such case you don't charge your clients the tax. You could still choose to register for GST/HST if your revenues are below the threshold, in which case you must charge your clients the tax. Some businesses voluntarily enroll for GST/HST, even when below the threshold, so they can claim input tax credits. If your annual revenues exceed $30,000, you must register for GST/HST and you must charge your clients the tax. FWIW, certain kinds of supplies are exempt, but the kind of services you'd be offering as an independent contractor in Canada aren't likely to be. There's more to the GST/HST than this, so be sure to talk to a tax accountant. References:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82d2d4a07821a9bb5dad39c545650d9a", "text": "Assuming you have registered your activities as partnership and receiving this money as Individual, you need to show this under Schedule OS, 1d [other income]. this will be under the ITR-2 [tab CG-OS] XLS tax preparation utility given by Tax Department. The XLS can be found at https://incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in/portal/individual_huf.do If the funds you are receiving are large [more than say Rs 500,000] then suggest you incorporate a partnership firm or company, there are quite a few exceptions you can claim lowering you tax outgo. The fact that you are transferring funds to your partners can be an issue incase you get audited. You would need to have sufficient evidence to show that the money paid was for services rendered directly and not your income. It would be easier if you create a partnership or have the client directly pay to them. Again if the sum is small its fine, as the sum becomes large, it would get noticed by the tax authorities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691b6d6029c2f362848881780986f078", "text": "I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c27a6745db872edf0b1741bb3136b829", "text": "\"A C-Corp is not a pass-through entity, any applicable taxes would be paid by the Corporation, which is a separate legal entity from yourself. If you use the points to purchase something for yourself, that would constitute \"\"income\"\" to you, and would be taxable on your personal income tax.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6596d074e54060305ee4274ca92893b", "text": "\"Going by the information from Goods and Services Tax (GST) on the Australian Government website, there seem to be a number of possibilities. Note: First I am neither a tax expert nor a lawyer; this is simply my interpretation of the rules on the page linked above. Second, this interpretation is based on the assumption that \"\"resells a service\"\" means you (at least technically) buy the service from another company and sell it on to the users of your app. Depending on the nature of the service, and possibly factors such as whether you are deemed to \"\"take possession\"\" during the transaction, it might be that different rules apply. Your Turnover is Under A$75,000 (Providing you're not reselling taxi services!) You won't need to register for GST, should not charge it, and your invoices should show that GST was not included in the price. However, if the turnover of the company whose services you are reselling is registered for GST, they will be charging you GST that you will not be able to claim back, so you would need to factor this into the price you charge your users (before any promotional discount). For example: Your Turnover is Over A$75,000 If your turnover is above the limit, you would need to charge GST on the final sale amount and pay this amount (one eleventh of the price your customer paid) to the Australian Government. You also have to send out properly-formatted tax invoices. However, it's probably safe to say the company you are buying the original service from will also be over the GST threshold, so you should be able to reclaim the GST that was charged to you by them. For example: Here, your overall profit/loss is helped by the fact that you can reclaim the GST you were charged, and can under some circumstances result in an overall rebate. These figures assume you add 10% to your selling price to cover the GST you have to pay the Government. However, this may make your offering uncompetitive, so you may have to absorb some/all of the GST yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95dd36e4d0bd04692f5031191b9c6a52", "text": "\"Regarding vehicle property tax in Virgina. The big difference is that business vehicles don't get a tax break: Under Virginia law -- the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998 (PPTRA, also known as the \"\"No Car Tax\"\" legislation) -- the State planned to subsidize 100% of the taxes on personal use vehicle assessments below $20,000 by the year 2002. In passing this law, the State effectively pledged state revenue to pay local governments throughout the Commonwealth a subsidy in lieu of personal property taxes that local governments would have otherwise collected directly from taxpayers. At present, the State pays approximately 62% of the bill, and the taxpayer pays the remaining 38%. These rates are subject to change annually. The taxpayer must pay the full amount of taxes on any vehicle assessment that exceeds $20,000. Only personal use vehicles qualify for PPTRA. If that vehicle is worth 20K then a business will pay 4.57% of 20,000, but an individual will pay 4.57% of 7,600. A difference of $566 per year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1075f7878643114cf6782d191f3599ae", "text": "From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession. Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "33a18214048d00ec5c14fc9655f16b82", "text": "If you are an entrepreneur, and you are looking forward to strike on your own ( the very definition of entrepreneur) then I suggest that you don't invest in anything except your business and yourself. You will need all the money you have when you launch your business. There will be times when your revenue won't be able to cover your living costs, and that's when you need your cash. At that point of time, do you really want to have your cash tie up in stock market/property? Some more, instead of diverting your attention to learn how the stock market/property works, focus on your business. You will find that the reward is much, much greater. The annual stock market return is 7% to 15%. But the return from entrepreneurship can be many times higher than that. So make sure you go for the bigger prize, not the smaller gains. It's only when your business no longer requires your capital then you can try to find other means of investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a49bebeec026b0bc150ec6b1e3b579a", "text": "Diversity of risk is always a good idea. The cheapest equity-based investment (in terms of management costs) is some form of tracker or indexed fund. They're relatively low risk and worth putting in a fixed amount for long-term investment. I agree with Ngu Soon Hui, you're going to need a lot of cash if you decide to start your own business. You may have to cover a significant amount of time without an income and you don't want all your cash tied up. However, putting all your money into one business is not good risk management. Keep some savings where they can be a lifeline, should you need it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a427a599b24669cd353c69fa32a4cf4d", "text": "I talk about this subject on my blog on investing, I share everything that has worked for me personally and that makes sense. I would say the ideal investment would be to continue the entrepreneur route. Just make sure you have a clear plan and exit strategy. For me it's all about passion, I love blogging about personal experiences with life, money, and anything that affects our lives. Find something that you would talk about whether you were paid or not and create a business off of it. You'll never work a day in your life because you love it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "bc86e5c2e5f05a875a6661be66ed5bcb", "text": "Sometimes invested capital is expected to earn interest, I've seen this be a stipulation in LLC operating agreements and Corporate bylaws. I thought this arrangement looks a little less than fair. BTW I'm a college freshman, though I do the finances for my parents' regulatory compliance and governance consulting company. Anyhow, that's just my two cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb", "text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18e2dbbfbc4a95e3a737de96b732f1da", "text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e581c27f5031f5164a7926715fae4f3", "text": "Whey protein, coffee, skills, skills, skills did I mention skills? Learn useful things and no debt. As for actual investment vehicles.. I have bad views of what is going to happen of the next 10 years.. I doubt you'll be allowed to own anything you invested in....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db4f592662f61d0769da885278c96784", "text": "An ideal investment for a highly risk tolerant college grad with a background in software and programming, is a software company. That's because it's the kind of investment that you will be able to judge better than most other people, including yours truly. Hopefully, one day the software company for a highly risk tolerant investor will be your own.(Ask Bill Gates or even Michael Dell, although the latter was more involved in hardware.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06a650f6e12c270ce086e21c87761e3", "text": "\"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19a399279fa3d682c76b0f1cb8422a2e", "text": "IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a5855b5ced372bdbf8af7f1267c5ced", "text": "I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0602eb2408df6d73c04c5a0a08efd72a", "text": "\"If that's your goal. Watch the entire webinar on warren buffet books by Preston Pysh first for a good intro into stocks bonds etc: https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=PLECECA66C0CE68B1E&amp;v=KfDB9e_cO4k Read Dale Carnegies book \"\"How to Win Friends and Influence People\"\" in order to learn how to communicate to people effectively and create networks. The most important skill in any field you choose to go into. Read \"\"The Everything Store\"\" for essentially an MBA in business. Read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin graham for a bachelors in finance. Then take classes that get you the very best professors in the field of finance, economics, and business at your school and make sure you never stop asking questions. Continue to develop your skills and create good saving &amp; communication habits. And if you want great jobs, get internships. To get internships be involved in as much as you can in campus and take leadership roles (especially when you think you can't handle it) you will grow quickly as a leader and businessman if you do it right. If reading is a bit much for you, try audiobooks. And make sure you enjoy college and surround yourself with ambitious youngsters like yourself. It will help you grow. Enjoy school and be social, make mistakes and do whatever it takes to get a minimum 3.5 GPA (get old tests study groups easy teachers or GPA boosting classes if you need to) Aight that's all I got haha\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d1c127a3e9e3982f880d91565d518c2", "text": "I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years. The concept is sound if executed correctly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43e29fa4421236af230cf2f47a04c70e", "text": "\"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8fa04eaae270a59d75c5b36c12e036b", "text": "\"Between \"\"fresh out of college\"\" and \"\"I have no debts, and a support system in place which because of which I can take higher risks.\"\" I would put every penny I could afford in the riskiest investment platform I was willing to. Holding onto money in a bank account is likely to cost you %1-%2 a year depending on what interest rates are and what inflation looks like. Money invested in a market could loose it all for you or you could become an overnight millionaire. Loosing it all would suck but you are young you will bounce back. Losing it slowly to inflation is just silly when you are young. If there is something you know you have to do in the next few years start to save for it but otherwise use the fact that you are young and have a safety net to try to make money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a3c83dcfcc7f65c371782525e80bd26", "text": "Given what you state you should shop around for an advisor. Think of the time required to pursue your strategies that you list? They already have studied much of what you seek to learn about. Any good investor should understand the basics. This is Canadian based but many of the concepts are universal. Hope you find it helpful. http://www.getsmarteraboutmoney.ca/Pages/default.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551e04ec2baa8f1a64f61ef6cd41daff", "text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7b8f26b9c664f83164a67fe7323ab686", "text": "\"This depends on your definitions of assets and liabilities. The word \"\"asset\"\" has a fairly straight forward definition. Generally speaking, an asset in finance is something that you own/control that has economic value. The asset has value because it is generating income for you or because you expect that it will be worth something to someone in the future. \"\"Liability\"\" is tougher to define, and depends on context. In accounting, a liability is a debt or obligation that is owed. It is essentially the opposite of an asset; where an asset represents something of value that you own, increasing your balance sheet, a liability is a value that you owe, decreasing your balance sheet. In that sense, a website or domain name that you own is an asset, not a liability, because it is something you own that has some value. It is not a debt. Many people use the word \"\"liability\"\" informally to refer to a bad asset: something that is losing value or is causing more in expenses than it is generating in income. (See definition #5 on Wiktionary.) With this definition, you might consider a website or a domain name a liability if it is losing money. Alternatively, depending on your business, you might not consider it an asset or a liability, but an expense instead. An expense is a cost of doing business. For example, if your business is selling something, you might need a website to make that happen. The website isn't purchased as an investment, and it might not have any value apart from your business. It is simply a necessary expense for your business.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418d1c8eb7b3bcbfe3ed9d3b91e0f720", "text": "In an accounting position, a domain name would fall under an intangible asset. Copyrights and patents are intangible, while tangible assets would be buildings or land (also known as property, plant, and equipment). Noting above, you can list it as an expense for personal reasons, but that would be poor classification. Tangible and intangible assets come with expenses such as legal fees and design. In these instances, you would expense the cost, or fee, but add back that value to the tangible or intangible as it would be considered maintenance. Please read here for tax treatment of a domain name. Please read here for what an intangible asset is. Also read here on page 11 for more clarification by IFRS.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f83e907fd4c969acb36a4db865744b4d", "text": "I've read over these responses like a dozen times. It's really cool hearing from a business owner who has experienced things first-hand. Nobody in my family has ever been or known anything about business/stocks/Anything. I'm learning everything from the internet, friends, and now reddit. I'll certainly seek true legal advice but you have no idea how helpful you and every other person on this thread has been. Thank you! I'm all ears to anything else", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a25b57209b7b65d9120b4099816dbf27", "text": "Generally, the answer is as follows: If there is a legal obligation to pay cash flow (including the possibility of court determined restructuring), then it is debt. If the asset owner is not guaranteed any cash flow, but instead owns the *residual* cash flow from the operations of the business (I.e. the cash flow left-over), then it is equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84fc8436480e8a494420b0c68ea08c25", "text": "\"I think you misunderstand the purpose of the liability account. I would suggest you review the standard accounting model, but to give you a brief overview: Income and expenses are money coming into and out of your possession. They are the pipes flowing into and out of your \"\"box\"\". Inside your box, you have assets (bank, savings, cash, etc) and liabilities (credit cards, unpaid debts, etc). Money can flow into and out of either asset or liability accounts, for example: deposit a payment (income to asset), buy office supplies with cash (asset to expense), pay a bill with credit card (liability to expense), customer pays one of your debts directly (income to liability). Paying off a debt with an asset does not affect your overall net worth, so paying a check to your credit card bill (asset to liability) doesn't decrease your total balance, it merely moves the value from one bucket to another. Now to your question: Mandatory payments, such as taxes or insurance (or for that matter, utilities, rent, food- all things that \"\"must\"\" be bought occasionally) are not liabilities, instead they are all expenses. They might be paid FROM a liability account, if they are paid on credit for example, but the money still flows from liability to expense. In my own records I have Expense:Taxes and Expense:Insurance, with sub-accounts in each. Where the money comes from depends entirely on how I pay my bills, whether from cash or banks (asset) or whether it's a charge (liability). Sometimes you receive payments back from an insurance company. I find that rather than treating insurance premiums as a positive balance in a liability (with eventual payments as debits to the liability account), it is better to treat any payment from the insurance as income. Hope that helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "771ef6ae92da14c94bcd4eba78e1270b", "text": "\"Technical people on Reddit who have dealt with Oracle or similar web sites &amp; systems (myself included) seem to believe that Oregon's claims come down to whether it was Oracle or the state government who was worse at planning the creation and maintenance of Oregon's healthcare web site. I tend to think that government entities are often worse at managing &amp; planning things, and therefore believe that Oracle would be less likely to blame, but this doesn't necessarily mean that all of the more than dozen claims for damages will all be thrown out either. One key claim is that Oracle asserted that ~95% of the web site's functionality would work \"\"out of the box\"\", thus leaving only 5% of the web site's functionality requiring third party (potentially custom) integration. The burden is on Oregon to prove that the failures of the web site were the result of more than that 5%, and that Oracle was contractually obligated to fix issues with the \"\"&gt;5%\"\" at no additional charge. Failure to prove that would result in Oracle being justified in asking for more $ to fix the web site, such that the alleged racketeering and much of the fraud did not actually take place.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "558f752b8e4d53038da7f1fad1c7b577", "text": "One company owns majority of popular freelancing websites (elance included) Aside from the race to the bottom pricing happening for projects; customer is always right. Lots of stories of even a pip from a client freezing accounts -- not even just a project, your whole account with any ongoing projects. Everything gone. Thousands lost. Not worth it. No recourse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e89abafad08bda7125659f6655dfd39", "text": "Assets with zero value, perhaps. Unless you can prove that they have resale value. Good luck with that. In other words, not worth spending time on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebebc5c60545ce9fcf8ba4c35d204b25", "text": "Fellow dirty jerz resident here. I would highly recommend going the llc route. If, god forbid, anything ever happened and you were sued, the llc will contain all losses and your personal assets will not be at risk. I'm not sure about the timing of clients. Better to ask a lawyer - cheap to use online services like rocketlawyer (sp?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8378244dc29df4226efa9ea00b22aaf4", "text": "Yes, you do. Unless you actually donate it, the loan will be repaid and as such - is an asset for you. On your taxes you report the interest you got paid for the loan. You can claim the interest as a charitable deduction, if you don't effectively charge any (IRS dictates minimum statutory interests for arm-length loan transactions).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9797c3ae43e312e7a4e29c26a0f28f57", "text": "If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f89ed67b5f0774d7905ab336c87cbb9a", "text": "REITs can be classified as equity, mortgage, or hybrid. A security that sells like a stock on the major exchanges and invests in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. Trades like equity but the underlying is a property ot mortgage. So you are investing in real estate but without directly dealing with it. So you wouldn't classify it as real estate. CD looks more like a bond.If you look at the terms and conditions they have many conditions as a bond i.e. callable, that is a very precious option for both the buyer and seller. Self occupied house - Yes an asset because it comes with liabilities. When you need to sell it you have to move out. You have to perform repairs to keep it in good condition. Foreign stock mutual fund - Classify it as Foreign stocks, for your own good. Investments in a foreign country aren't the same as in your own country. The foreign economy can go bust, the company may go bust and you would have limited options of recovering your money sitting at home and so on and so forth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90064678db84cc09897194a1ff7108ba", "text": "\"Maybe not the official solution satisfying int'l convention / legislation, but at least has some logic to it (though I myself am not 100% convinced as yet): Liabilities ! ... but is it really a liability? Rationale: And simultaneously ups my liabilities: since what difference does it make if I borrow some money (to use it or not use it, repay later) or if someone just wants to \"\"store\"\" some money with me: w.r.t. balance sheet I'd say: zero... ... with the one caveat that it might make a difference w.r.t. taxation ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ea38d521dc9ddf679ca1260bc44b9d4", "text": "You mean sites like prosper.com? I see that they are growing but is this really substainable when the novely wears off? Also I find the low volatility claim interesting since I thought low vol portfolios would be a hard sell. How have you experienced this?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ab27f6adec8293954d5fffd3caaefc", "text": "Quite a bit as in, $100K+? If you're a sole operator, not sure what constitutes a real likelihood that a risk of liability will materialize, and in need of a lot of up front financing, I am genuinely concerned that you're going to a lay a giant egg on this one. What is it your business is going to be doing? I don't really want to give a free consultation, but I'm worried you're either misunderstanding something or about to make a mistake, and I don't want to see that happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e2d6eedafa33632362dc3b7976108c", "text": "The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d72a2287e6187ab29b5c58818cd1e8f", "text": "\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "adc6e15089c8a3f5d3ae3a5805a15a08", "text": "In a well-managed company, employees bring more dollars to their employers than the employers pay the employees (salary and benefits). Employees trade potential reward for security (a regular paycheck). Employers take on the risk of needing to meet payroll and profit from the company's income, minus expenses. The potential rewards are much higher as an employer (self or otherwise), so the ones that do make it do quite well. But this is also consistent with your other statement that the reverse is not true; the risk of self-employment is high, and many self-employed people don't become millionaires.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8031cefc62322a4ac0c426c8089c9342", "text": "If you could find a breakdown, I suspect that it would show not just that they are self employed but own their own company. There are many people that are self employed, many of them make a good living at it, but are not millionaires. My neighbour the plumber is a perfect example of this sort of self-employed and comfortable but not rich person. The key to wealth growth is to own (a significant part of) a company. It one way to leverage a smaller amount of money to something much larger. Plough your profits back in to the company to grow it, pay yourself reasonably for some time as the company grows. After it is some size, you can afford to pay yourself more of the profits, if not sell it as a going concern to someone else. One last thought - I am assuming that your book is claiming that they made their money through self-employment, instead of choosing to become self employed after striking rich somewhere. If I were to win the lottery, I might then become a self-employed something, but in that case it was not my self-employment that got me there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8a17e9673fda9e7ad31cebd8b86c853", "text": "The key to becoming wealthy as a self-employed person is the drive to be successful. A driven person, who starts their own company (or companies, should they fail), will find success. Assuming that you define success as the accumulation of wealth, then yes, self-employment is correlated with wealth. But as matt mentions in the comments, there is no casual (in the statistical sense) relationship between self-employment and wealth. While I can't say for sure, I would argue that drive is more important that the employment situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a742e8ab8551b0afa3c10b4f7640e5e1", "text": "Many studies show that the wealthiest households are self employed and small business owners. But there is significant risk associated, and so the wealth cannot really be enjoyed.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e2ce692daf1875916c41f817ea8fb73f", "text": "\"The fundamental flaw here is conflating net worth with utility, at least failing to recognize that there's a nonlinear relationship between the two. In the extreme example imagine taking a bet that will either make you twice as rich or completely broke. Your expected return is zero, but it would be pretty dumb to take it since being flat broke could ruin your life while being twice as rich may only improve it marginally. In more realistic cases most of your income is tied up in fixed costs, which magnifies relatively small perturbations to your net worth. Losing something essential (like your house or car), even if it's only 20% of your net worth, renders you effectively broke until you scrape together enough cash to get another one. That situation robs you of much more utility than you'd gain from a 20% increase in net worth. In either case, avoiding the risk is completely rational as long as you believe in nonlinear utility as a function of net worth, it's not just an issue of humans being \"\"risk averse\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28ca8044728004376da120c7f572a56f", "text": "\"It doesn't generally matter, and I'm not sure if it is in fact in use by the IRS other than for general statistics (like \"\"this year 20% of MFJ returns were with one spouse being a 'homemaker'\"\"). They may be able to try and match the occupation and the general levels and types of income, but for self-employed there's a more precise and reliable field on Schedule C and for employees they don't really need to do this since everything is reported on W2 anyway. So I don't think they even bother or give a lot of value to such a metric. So yes, I'm joining the non-authoritative \"\"doesn't matter\"\" crowd.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e614453ac44bc8533066e00f59ad5f1", "text": "\"that's one way to look at it. The point is that the \"\"wealth gap\"\" is a LOT less interesting to me than the \"\"income gap\"\". https://www.glassdoor.com/research/ceo-pay-ratio/ I've got all kinds of respect for people who save their pennies, make wise investments, and derive benefit from those actions. I've got MUCH less respect for a guy/gal who HONESTLY thinks they deserve to make ~$78k / hr.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70959a94ab8dc442e876159289f59fd4", "text": "\"? You quoted an oft cited oft disproven false factoid. It's extremely biased. Like you seem to be. Most of those \"\"self made\"\", notice those quotes, people came from money. Their business is \"\"self made\"\", with family money. Like the article implies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b46bf67eed3590fec7a165af77e84c4a", "text": "\"Well, as they state \"\"the decreases in median net worth appear to have been driven most strongly by a broad collapse in house prices\"\". When you're caught holding an overvalued asset, was your previous worth really a true estimate? A better headline might be \"\"median family wealth corrected to true value after previous accounting errors found.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d4cdd04f8a72d8845bcb0ccb5f675ec", "text": "\"You got some answers that essentially inform you that CEOs that have £200k written on their paysheet may in fact get much more. I'll take the opposite point of view and talk about people who (according to whatever definition) have a £200k/year income. How can they afford it Guess no 1: not all of them can (in the sense that it is quite possible to end up with negative net worth at £200k/year income - particularly if you immediately want to show off with brand new luxury cars, luxury holidays and a large house in a very representative region). Guess no 2: not all of the £200k/year CEOs are equally visible. There is a trade-off between going for wealth, large house, and luxury car. I deliberately ordered the three points according to increased display of \"\"wealth\"\". However, display of wealth usually comes at a cost (in a very monetary sense). And there are ways to get much display without having much wealth (see below: lease the car, also the mortgage on the house usually isn't displayed on the outside). You also need to take into account how long they are already building up wealth. I guess the typical CEO with £200k/year you're asking about did not just finish school and enter his work life in this position. It would be very interesting to see how income, accumulating wealth (and possibly \"\"displayed wealth\"\") correlate. My guess is that the correlation between income and accumulated wealth isn't that high, and the correlation between displayed and actual wealth is probably even lower. they possess luxury cars, large house and huge savings Are you sure these are the same managers? E.g. the ones with the huge savings are and the ones with the luxury cars? I'm asking particularly about the luxury cars, because such cars loose value very quickly and/or are often not owned by the driver but rather by the bank or leasing company. Which on the other hand offers the more savings-oriented CEO who is not that much interested in having a brand new luxury car the possibility to go for a one-year-old and save the rest. Knowing that, your CEO should be able to buy a one-year-old Mercedes SL 350 / year. Or a new one every 1 1/2 years (without building up savings or buying a house). However, building up wealth will be much faster with the CEO going for the one-year-old as the brand-new car option amounts to loosing ca. £20 - 30k within a year. An even-more-savings-oriented CEO who keeps his existing Mercedes 300 TD for another few years, thinking that this conservative choice of car will be trust-inspiring to the customers. Or goes for the SLK thinking that most people anyways don't know that the K between SL and SLK halves the price... However, if you just want to be seen with the car: after an initial payment of say £8-10k, you can get a decent SLK 350 (not the base model, either) at a monthly rate of ca. 600£/month or less than £7k/year. Note however, that this money does not count towards any kind of wealth, it's just renting a nice car. In other words: If driving the SLK 350 is your absolute goal, you could in theory have that with a net salary of £25k/year (according to your tax calculation, that should be somewhere around £35k / year gross), if you have the savings for the initial payment (being able to make the initial payment may also help convincin the leasing company that you're serious about it and able to pay your rates). There are also huge differences in value between large houses, compare e.g. these 2: And, last but not least, there is a decided one-way component in the timing of priorities here: it is much easier to go and get a luxury car when you have savings than first going for the luxury car and then trying to make up with the savings... I forgot to answer the question in the caption of your question: How do I build wealth By going on to live as if your income were only £50k (as far as that is compatible with your job) - I gather the median gross income in the UK is about £30k, so aiming at £50k leaves you a very comfortable budget for luxury spending. If you want to build up wealth faster, adjust that. In general, if you can manage to withhold much of any income increase from spending, that will help (trivial but powerful truth). From the leasing calculation you can conclude that you basically have no chance to show off your wealth by luxury cars. That is, you'd need to go for luxury cars that are completely incompatible with with building if you want to show your built up wealth by the car: there are too many people who even destroy their existing wealth in order to display luxury. At least if anyone is around who has either a correct idea what luxury cars cost (or don't cost) or will look that up in the internet. Also, people who know such things may also have the idea that the probability that such a car was downright paid (wealth) is small compared to the probability of meeting a leased or (mortgaged) car. Which means, the plan to show off doesn't work out that well with the people you'd want to impress. As for the other people: just a bit of display you can get far cheaper: If you really want to drive the SLK, rent it for an occasion (weekend) rather than for years. I met a sales manager who told me which rental cars they get when important customers from far east are visiting. The rest of the year they drive normal business cars. You may want to choose a rental company that doesn't write their name on the license plate. Apply the same ideas to the decision of buying a house. Think about what you want for yourself, and then look where you can get how much of that for how much money. Oh, and by the way: if I understand correctly, the average UK CEO wage is £120k, not £200k.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b59b8bcec3ce603a925a99d968e6ff9f", "text": "The Chinese corporate sector doesn't really have a crazy amount of debt compared to developed countries. And households even less. What people are concerned about is how quickly it is rising, not the actual amount. And also the structure of the debt. (And how much of it isn't captured and reported.) But to answer your question, the two factors you mention are positively correlated, not negatively as you postulate. The more assets you have, the higher the odds you are able to repay and the more debt lenders are willing to give you. But debt tends to be measured relative to income not wealth and this is another reason Chinese household wealth may be overstated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f54dcd1c8d8f89bebab265d18693b6a1", "text": "I mean, that self made stat has been disproven enough times to count it as laughable when people like you still tout it all about. That self made aspect doesn't mean what youd like to imply it means when you dive into the data. Bill Gates is a perfect example of this. So is Bezos", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ebdfe4ade818d0840a54870502ca32a", "text": "More likely I miswrote. Yes, we're talking about capital gains. But who, outside of the moneyed elite, have enough capital gains to incur substantial taxes? Many don't and never will despite how hard they work or how productive they are. Also, doesn't taxing income more than capital gains discourage production? I always hear how high capital gains tax discourages investment and growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06a64bb266aaeb2e9eb528cf6d423bd0", "text": "\"See comment on how \"\"self made\"\" bill gates is, and he's probably legitimately one of the more self made people to make that list. \"\"Self\"\" made people come from very wealthy families. If I give you a loan of a million bucks to make a company and financially support you for two years while you wait for the business to make money you're still \"\"self made\"\". Just view how they calculate it. It's horse shit\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6abc80a58b79b8439f96e75f78cb81e8", "text": "Yes. It is luck that person will have no debilitating accidents or illness to give them crippling medical debt. It is luck that provides us with our family. It is skill that lets us choose trustworthy and resourceful people in our lives, but it is luck that they remain so. It is luck that those investments provide a healthy return, that the companies hire prudent management and do look to cheat their investors. Personal responsibility is all about choices, right? Those choices are only as good as the information and resources available. Access to resources and information is quite clearly not equal, and therefore the choices we make are built on foundations of chance. Too many people in America have a nasty habit asking people to tie their own shoes with one hand tied behind their back (or cut off), and blaming them when they trip.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bb6f2fa37a7dadb2eecc6d87c3f65f2", "text": "\"In theory, the idea is that diversified assets will perform differently in different circumstances, spreading your risk around. Whether that still functions in practice is a decent question, as the \"\"truth\"\" of most probability based arguments for diversification rely on the different assets being at least somewhat uncorrelated. This article suggests that might not be true. Specifically: The correlations we note among industry sectors are profoundly and dysfunctionally high. and Gold and silver traders have gotten too used to the negative correlation trade with stocks. This is, in fact, an unusual relationship for precious metals tostocks. The correlation should actually be zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aca61a80dd93ea592d394c954c87c63b", "text": "While I agree that luck has something to do with it, most of the successful business owners also put in crazy long hours and submitted themselves to huge financial risk in order to get their businesses started. I do not say this to mean there is no luck; there is always an element of luck. But you cannot get lucky if you aren't at the right place at the right time, and sometimes arriving at that place and trying to get lucky takes much more than people realize. Edit: some people are interpreting this to say that only successful business owners work hard. This is not what I am saying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab0c1e82e1e9f0cc6156e8c9f7686003", "text": "Well, yes. Lewis (and anybody) is presuming that you accept take advantage of good fortune. In his own example, though, he wasn't in any way prepared to go into finance. Having gotten there, and established himself even, he pitched it in favor of writing a book. Neither of those examples supports everyone calling luck the result of work plus brains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ad8021feefe60621434a1ed3c5d1ddf", "text": "Is this really a net effect of concentration of wealth? When so few people hold all the money, you need more money to keep the system running. Imagine we need 10 trillion to keep the economy running. If 1000 people hold 50%, you effectively need 5 trillion just to keep the economy running. It is somewhat ironic that the last time we had full employment was basically the real estate bubble where tons of money was dumped into the system by liar loans with no credit check. Not saying we want to go back there, but perhaps we need that level of money in the system to get full employment. If we want to get there safely, we need to buy back our debt, invest more in our infrastructure and provide more services. This is the only way we are going to get full employment", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6215fdd9bea0719ad1c30f5dc8684f14", "text": "That seems to indicate that you can in fact depreciate a vehicle given to you? Section 1015 discusses the calculation of basis for gifted property, it says nothing about depreciation. Personal property cannot be depreciated for tax purposes unless it is used for business purposes. So unless you drive your car as part of your sole-proprietor business, you cannot depreciate it, be it a gift or a car you purchased yourself. If you can depreciate the car, then sec. 1015 is used to calculate the basis for the depreciation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "116d04b82e742b0ca8785f85fceddc5f", "text": "Yes, you can depreciate gifts to your business subject to the special rules in § 1011 and Regulation § 1.1011–1 and 1.167(g)–1. It is dual basis property so when you sell the item your gain/loss basis will be different. Adjusted basis of the donor for gain, FMV on the date received for the loss. Minus any depreciation you add, of course, in both cases.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "85003e0414cf9df7ca49bf330b63a9ab", "text": "\"Short answer: Absolutely not, unless you're comfortable with putting years of your labor into a depreciating asset that will incur hefty maintenance costs over its remaining life. i.e. consider your 10K gone forever once you buy the car, and then some. Some comments on your reasons: \"\"Keeping up with spoiled brats\"\" is a losing proposition, and is a mindset counterproductive to financial independence. I'd encourage you to find a way to not care about how the spoiled brats live their lives. It won't be easier when you're older and you see your peers driving fancy cars and living fantasy lifestyles that you are tempted to emulate. Break the impulse to \"\"keep up\"\" and you'll be in a much better place. A used BMW may not be a piece of junk at first, but once you hit 100K miles, everything will suddenly fall apart and need repair. Been there myself. Still have the car after 7 years, only because very few people want to buy a high-mileage German sport sedan with recurring maintenance issues. See #2. It will be a good drive for a while, then it will own you. This is not so bad when you have a decent amount of savings, but when you have nothing, it's very hard to truly enjoy the car while knowing that any problems not covered by warranty will be financially devastating. Are you prepared to ride the bus for 4 weeks while saving enough income from work to replace a bad clutch? I had to do this, and it's not something I brag about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2877ea212c9e3863024c98fb6b9f6fa0", "text": "In a perfect world scenario you would get a car 2-5 years old that has very little mileage. One of the long standing archaic rules of the car world is that age trumps mileage. This was a good rule when any idiot could roll back an odometer. Chances are now that if you rolled your odometer back the car was serviced somewhere, had inspection or whatever and it is on a report. If seller was found to do this they could face jail time and obviously now their car is almost worthless. Why do I mention this? Because you can take a look at 2011 cars. Those with 20K miles go for just a little more than those with 100K miles. As an owner you will start incurring heavy maintenance costs around 100K on most newer cars. By buying cars with lower mileage, keeping them for a year or two, and reselling them before they get up in miles, you can stay in that magic area where you can drive a pretty good car for $200-300 a month. Note that this takes work on both the buying and selling side and you often need cash to get these cars (dealers are good about siphoning really good used cars to employees/friends). This is a great strategy for keeping costs down and car value up but obviously a lot of people try to do this and it takes work and you have to be willing to settle sometimes on a car that is fine, but not exactly what you want. As for leasing this really gets into three main components: If you are going to do EVERYTHING at a dealership and you want something new or newish you might as well lease. At least then you can shop around for apples to apples. The problem with buying a new/used car from the dealers in perpetuity isn't the buying process. It is the fact that they will screw you on the trade-in. A car that books for 20K may trade-in for 17K. Even if the dealer says they are giving you 20K, then they make you pay list price for the car. I have many many times negotiated a price of a car and then wife brought in our car separately and I can count on ZERO fingers how many times that the dealership honored both sides of the negotiations. Not only did they not honor them but most refused to talk with us after they found out. With a lease you don't have to worry about losing this money in the negotiations. You might pay a little extra (or not since you can shop around) but after the lease you wash your hands of the car. The one caveat to this is the high-end market. When you are talking your Acura, Mercedes, Lexus... It is probably better to buy and trade in every couple years. You lose too much equity by leasing, where it won't cover the trade-in gap and cost of your money being elsewhere. I have a friend that does this and gets a slightly better car every 2-3 years with same monthly payment. Another factor to consider is the price of a car. If your car will be worth over $15K at time of sale you are going to have a hard time selling it by owner. When amounts get this high people often need financing. Yes they can get personal financing but most people are too lazy to do this. So the number of used car buyers on let's say craigslist are way way fewer as you start getting over $10-12K and I have found $15K to be kind of that magic amount. The pro-buy-used side is easy. Aim for those cars around $12-18K that are out there (and many still under warranty). These owners will have issues finding cash buyers. They will drop prices somewhere between book price and dealer trade-in. In lucky cases where they need cash maybe below dealer trade-in. And remember these sellers aren't dealing with 100s let alone 10 buyers. You drive the car for 3-4 years. Maybe it is $7-10K. But now you will get much much closer to book price because there will be far more buyers in this range.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf24b5d8cfb72fb8f040d7974afa9d5", "text": "I have sold cars before to individuals and always just received cash. I would think as long as the amount is less than $10,000.00 and the buyer is serious they will get there with the cash. Of course there is no possible way to guarantee the cash will not be counterfeit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6c4ae5dec040649e1cfeea63f1c9ee3", "text": "Obviously, the best thing financially would be to continue using your present car, unless it impacts you financially on a regular basis. For example, maintenance or breakdowns impacting your ability to work. An unreliable car also impacts your freedom, for example preventing you from taking road-trips you might want to take or taking up free time with maintenance. Give thought to what it is about your present car that you dislike, both to determine the value you gain from a new car and what's most important to you. Anytime you buy a car, you generally lose thousands of dollars simply driving it off the lot. This is the profit which goes to dealers, salespeople, etc... and not part of the actual value of the car. Cars also depreciate over time, with most of the depreciation happening in the first few years of operation. Many of the newer model cars have additional expenses. (For example, replacement $200 keys or electronic systems that can only be repaired at special facilities.) In addition, if you have insurance (other than the minimum third-party required by law), consider the rate increases and add up the long-term impact of that. Imagine you had invested that money instead at 8% interest over the lifetime of the car. If you don't have insurance, consider what you would do in the unfortunate situation where you were at fault in a collision. Could you afford to lose your investment? Even with safe responsible driving, there is always the potential for road/weather conditions or mechanical failures. If you determine there is sufficient value to be gained from changing vehicles, I would recommend that you buy a vehicle with history from someone privately, doing appropriate background checks and consulting friends or family who know about vehicles and can provide feedback. Do research into the models which interest you ahead of time, read online reviews. Every vehicle generally has known advantages and disadvantages which can take years to discover, so buying an older vehicle gives you the advantage of knowing what to expect. I would say there is probably a reasonable middle ground between using a 1991 vehicle you don't like (that's as old as you are) and getting a relatively new model. Look at what you value in the vehicle, consider all the costs, and find the balance that works best for you. Vehicles from 2000-2005 years are quite affordable and still 10-15 years newer than your car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be13fa59cf116fba48f6e48a8d156b8", "text": "\"First off learn from this: Never cosign again. There are plenty of other \"\"tales of woe\"\" outlined on this site that started and ended similarly. Secondly do what you can to get off of the loan. First I'd go back to her dad and offer him $1000 to take you off the loan and sign over the car. Maybe go up to $3000 if you have that much cash. If that doesn't work go to the bank and offer them half of the loan balance to take you off. You can sign a personal loan for that amount (maybe). Whatever it takes to get off the loan. If she has a new BF offer him the same deal as the dad. Why do you have to do this? Because you owned an asset that was once valued at 13K and is valued at (probably) less than 4K. Given that you have a loan on it the leverage works against you causing you to lose more money. The goal now is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. I feel like the goal of your post was to make your ex-gf look bad. It's more important to do some self examination. If she was such a bad person why did you date her? Why did you enter a business transaction with her? I'd recommend seeking counseling on why you make such poor choices and to help you avoid them in the future. Along these lines I'd also examine your goals in life. If your desire is to be a wealthy person, then why would you borrow money to buy a car? Seek to imitate rich people to become rich. Picking the right friends and mates is an important part of this. If you do not have a desire to be a wealthy person what does it matter? Losing 13K over seven months is a small step in the \"\"right\"\" direction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38ec38eaad11c8b8a112cf547e69262e", "text": "I think you're dancing with the line here, this question is hard to back up without opinions and could really be three different questions. I'm going to push aside the part about quality and reliability, that could be an emotional subject. So from a price standpoint, there's virtually no disagrement that it makes financial sense to buy a used car instead of a new car. The majority of new cars lose the majority of their resale value within the first year or two. If you purchase said car after someone else has used it for the first two years, you just avoided all of that depreciation yourself, and you're still going to be purchasing a perfectly reliable car as long as you are diligent in the buying process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4454d8ffce998d225e20eb9e5771fb5", "text": "It isn't common to lose that much value in 3 years, but it is possible. If you don't take care of small dents, scratches, etc., you can quickly reduce the value far beyond what you might expect looking at graphs. Another big factor is the trim level of the car that you purchase. If you spend $30,000 for the highest trim level of a car, instead of $22,000 for the lowest trim level, the higher trim car could lose 50% of it's value while the lower trim car loses only 35%. There's no way to know why the OP of your linked question had such a large loss, but again, that's not the usual experience. It is definitely a good idea to consider used though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9fbcff82a0a01ff954a2c75351c5c23", "text": "I'm guessing Toronto? Sell the car! Use public transit. Save a ton of money. You can always rent a car for the day or weekend (or use a service like Uber) when necessary at a fraction of the cost of car ownership, and feel good about it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8662bc7a394e496f275a26d98462aee", "text": "Of course you do. You can sell it, wreck it, do whatever you want with it. Of course, some things may void warranty, or whatever, but since you do in fact own the vehicle, it is technically yours to do with as you please. Did you know that you can bore the engine of a car to increase performance? Not saying you should, there are lots of pros and cons there, and it requires an individual with specialized knowledge to do it, who you will have to pay for his service, but it is doable. Should you be upset that this wasn't already done by the manufacturer? Did you know that lots of vehicles are equipped with gps functionality? If your car can display a compass, there is a decent chance that you already have the basics of what you need to set up gps in the vehicle. Should you be upset that your vehicle doesn't have gps? But you can't boil it down that far. Well, I suppose you can, but it makes everything cost more for everyone. When you buy a Tesla, you aren't just buying a car. You are buying into the company. They make updates, fix programming issues, etc. and this requires access. They chose to market their vehicles differently, and so they sell them differently. Alternatively, they could have 2 separate assembly lines, one for the 60 (discontinued) and one for the 75. Now this will equate to both cars costing significantly more than they currently do, but hey, at least you have the right battery, right?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3bc0e3ea7c70a92c9fe0bad50a0ad3a", "text": "\"The transfer is easy. Usually you just sign over the title to the new owner, and you're set. Blue book price is a fantasy designed to get you in a car dealership to trade in your car. You won't get \"\"blue book\"\" pricing. I would use NADA \"\"Yellow Book\"\" or Edmunds TMV pricing as a guide. A dealer won't pay you a good price, but will take the car off your hands quickly. Selling a car privately can be a real pain if you don't have the personality for it. You'll get more money and more hassle. Figure out where people do private party sales in your area. In my area, there's an autotrader magazine that dominates the market. Craigslist is going to attract the types of people who frequent craiglist, which is not always a good thing.\"", "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": "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": "715380f95aaedb38a91ca6a8d595aded", "text": "\"I do not think you are missing much. One thing you have right is low cost cars depreciate almost nothing. One thing you are missing is your satisfaction index. Driving a 200K car for 4 years requires a bit of motivation when your friends are driving new cars. Typically you need a larger goal to keep you focused. That might be saving money, getting out of debt, or obtaining an education. Buying a car from a private party, Craigslist is only one source, can save both parties money as the \"\"middle man\"\" is cut out. If you have the ability to do so, one can save a lot of money by doing your own brakes. The info is up on youtube, and I typically \"\"earn\"\" between 100-300/hour doing this work myself. Most of the time warranties do not pay off. At the core, they are insurance and insurance companies are in the business to make money. If your car is likely to need repairs a policy may be unattainable or very high in price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cef4b15724a32fdbb940c05a10463e0", "text": "I don't think there's much you can do. Losses from the sale of personal-use automobiles (used for pleasure, commuting, etc) are not deductible as capital losses. See IRS Tax Topic 409, end of the first paragraph. The expenses you incurred in owning and operating the car (insurance, fuel, maintenance, service plans, etc) are not deductible either. If you used it partly for business, then some of your expenses might be deductible; see IRS Tax Topic 510. This includes depreciation (decline in value), but only according to a standard schedule; you don't generally just get to deduct the difference between your buying and selling price. Also, you'd need to have records to verify your business use. But anyway, these deductions would apply (or not) regardless of whether you sell the car. You don't get your sales tax refunded when you resell the vehicle. That's why it's a sales tax, not a value-added tax. Note, however, that if you do sell it, the sales tax on this new transaction will be the buyer's responsibility, not yours. You do have the option on your federal income tax return to deduct the state sales tax you paid when you bought the car; in fact, you can deduct all the sales taxes you paid in that year. (If you have already filed your taxes for that year, you can go back and amend them.) However, this takes the place of your state income tax deduction for the year; you can't deduct both. See Tax Topic 503. So this is only useful if your sales taxes for that year exceeded the state income tax you paid in that year. Also, note that state taxes are not deductible on your state income tax return. Again, this deduction applies whether you sell the car or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aded402bd51de6c5e624d61882af5c79", "text": "I'm not a lawyer and someone more knowledgeable than I will probably respond to this inquiry. I worked with nonprofits for years however. My suggestion would be that the Board would have a resolution allowing the Director to approve any contract below a certain dollar amount.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "22338a43b9006dea9a3662a5d65947de", "text": "Nope. Or at least, if it were possible the company offering such a credit card would quickly go out of business. Credit card companies make money off of fees from the merchants the user is buying from and from the users themselves. If they charged no fees to the user on cash advances and, in fact, gave a 3% back on cash advances, then it would be possible for a user to: The company would lose money until they stopped the loophole or went out of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6e91792fbbfd98238e6a5d560df128", "text": "\"While I think this is generally inadvisable, there are sites and communities dedicated to \"\"points churning\"\" credit card reward programs. In general, no there is no easy way to get cash from a credit card, and receive the spending rewards, and not pay fees well in excess of your rewards value. However, there are people who figure out ways to do this kind of thing. Like buying prepaid Visa cards $500 at a time from drug stores on a 5% bonus rewards month. Or buying rolls of $1 coins from the US treasury with free shipping. The issue is the source of the fees. When you spend money on your card the merchant pays a fee. When you get cash from an ATM not only is there no merchant remitting a fee there is an ATM operator and a network both charging fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0dd41d0517af2ceda26e49c4584a138", "text": "You said: Use a credit card (to get my 3% Cash back) to withdraw cash ... Then you said: Is there any way to do this without paying a cash advance fee (or any fees in general)? Right there you have stated the inconsistency. Withdrawing cash using a credit card is a cash advance. You may or may not be charged a fee for doing the cash advance, but no credit card will offer you cash back on a cash advance, so you can't earn your 3% by using cash advances. As others have mentioned, you can sometimes get close by using the card to purchase things that are almost like cash, such as gift cards. But you have to make a purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf440d0839f6e7b0b0d43587d7dcdd8c", "text": "This was actually (sort of) possible a few years ago. The US Mint, trying to encourage use of dollar coins, would sell the coins to customers for face value and no shipping. Many people did exactly what you are proposing: bought hundreds/thousands of dollars worth of coins with credit cards, reaped the rewards, deposited the coins in the bank, and paid off the credit cards. See here, for example. Yeah, they don't have that program any more. Of course, this sort of behavior was completely predictable and painfully obvious to the credit card companies, who, as far as I know, never let users net rewards on cash advances. They're trying to make money after all, unlike the Mint, which, uh, well...", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "336b97b24895254218c39d45f15f8b28", "text": "\"in theory, yes. in practice, no. largely because merchants pay a fee to process credit card transactions which normally exceeds the cash back you can get. i tried this with square, since their vendor fee was 2.75%, and i got 5% back on restaurants. however, even though i registered with square as a restaurant, transactions were categorized as \"\"other services\"\" or something, so i only got 1% back and lost 1.75% net. moreover, if you did find a card/processor combination that left you with a net gain, they would eventually catch on and charge you with some sort of fraud. i wasn't worried about it with the square experiment because it was only 1$, but if you tried to do this with large sums, a human would catch you. and if it was enough money to matter, there would be a lawsuit. if you were really unlucky, you might get charged with some terrorism crap like \"\"structuring\"\" deposits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3debd2edac6a100583eaea8224464d7", "text": "\"I'm a bit loathe to offer this response, but some pre-paid credit card vendors offer \"\"direct deposit\"\" to the card. Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart is one of them -- the very first \"\"how to reload\"\" option is direct deposit from an employer: https://www.walmartmoneycard.com/walmart/account/learn-how I think this sort of service encourages bad money habits. People shouldn't have to pay fees to get their own money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49b743482fb6c3ce7ded4219b2149524", "text": "Three things prevent you from doing this: Credit cards generally don't accept other credit cards as payment. You could do this with a cash advance or balance transfer, but Cash advances and balance transfers usually have fees associated with them, negating any reward you might earn. Your card might have a no-fee balance transfer promotion going, but Cash advances and balance transfers generally aren't eligible for rewards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fe0271bdb83db485bf754c0f2b12df3", "text": "You can generally withdraw cash from an ATM with a major credit card. There are exceptions of course, but generally yes. It's a terrible deal unless you are in the most dire of straits. Avoid it. Credit card companies make money on purchases at a store from the store. If you pay late, they make money from you. For an ATM, they make money by charging you a fee and then charging interest on day one with no grace period. This is a very high interest rate short term loan. You will also be charged a fee by the ATM itself - and you will pay interest on that fee!", "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": "a72d3d0c6af58a24af1bad27a75d7846", "text": "If it's always the same person, you could open a joint account. Then fees are avoided altogether. How fast the funds are available depends on what you deposit. Cash is immediate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1757b028d75e69e0e93402a12b746d1b", "text": "One way you can accomplish this is on a cruise ship. Most cruise ships have casinos, and most will allow you to sign out chips at the casino cage. You can then exchange the chips for cash. The chips that were signed for are resolved as room charges. Those room charges can be charged to a CC. Those signed for chips are rolled into the total room charges and are thus not treated as a cash advance. The cost of the cruise not with standing, you could earn money in that form. Step off the boat, deposit cash in the bank, and send a check to the CC company. All that being said, it is an cheap and safe way to get cash while you are traveling in that method.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4502fb18066fc053cd52c0aca1090f1", "text": "You don't need credit cards but there are few benefits, if you pay them off right away I assume you do have a debit card, since sometimes (like unattended gas stations or shopping on the web) cash is not accepted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebb874728ea5c83f7c47d5f71cbed3ed", "text": "I can't speak for India, but for US travelers abroad, using an ATM card that reimburses transaction fees is usually the most convenient and cheapest way to obtain foreign cash. There are several banks and brokerages that offer these types of ATM cards in the US. The exchange rate is competitive and because the fees are reimbursed it's cheaper and easy than going to a bank or kiosk to exchange currencies. I don't know if you can get accounts/cards like this in India that reimburse ATM fees. For purchases, using a credit card is fine, too. Some cards charge a foreign transaction fee of ~1%, some don't. The credit card I use most of the time does charge a 1% transaction fee, but I get 2% back in rewards so I still don't mind using it when traveling.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104ae8a9ec8b6b78961094e0cd95e102", "text": "If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate. It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance. I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees. You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever). Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ac9a4cfd8b76a5ee60eb07001219f44", "text": "\"A few ideas: If you can find cards that don't have fees, you could use re-loadable debit/gift cards as your \"\"envelopes\"\". You can write the purpose for each card on its face. Carrying around more than a few cards will get unwieldy fast -- how many categories do you need? Use the rewards card strategy that was recommended to you. Put all of your spending on this. Carry a slip of paper in your wallet for each of your categories of spending. When you charge against a category, punch/mark/tear off a piece of the paper according to some scheme that will allow you to track the amount. You don't have to carry the envelopes around with you all the time. You wouldn't carry around the grocery envelope all the time -- unless you often just randomly decide to go grocery shopping while you're out and about. When you are going out and know you need to have cash for a certain purpose, pull some money from your envelope, put a paper clip around it with maybe a slip of paper, and put it into your wallet. You could carry around a few different categories of money this way without too much hassle. This requires planning your spending for the day. (The best way to avoid spending money is to not have it.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f75b393e72ec9c1debbd50e4cafb218", "text": "All the fees are added to the amount you actually spend, but they only occur when you do these kind of transactions. They do not happen for any other reason. If you transfer a balance from another credit card this fee is added to your balance. Since this is your first credit card you don't have to transfer any balance. This site says that this is a special type of check, linked to your credit card account, not to your checking account. If you write this type of check to a merchant the additional fees will apply. If you use your credit card at an ATM this fee will be applied on top of the money you withdraw. Usually it is a percentage of the amount you withdraw. According to this site, a cash equivalent is something like casino chips which can be easily converted back into money without any loss. If you use your credit card in a different currency, for example Euro but your credit cards currency is Dollar. Usually a percentage of the amount (~3-5%). If you withdraw money from a foreign currency ATM they add usually a fixed amount plus a percentage or any combination of this.", "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": "bc875b9c0d3f029ba3a99bb6c6a2d0be", "text": "I am using my debit card regularly: in ATM's with a pin, in stores with my signature, and online. But later you say But from what I recall from starting my own business (a LONG time ago), for debit cards there's only a per-transaction fee of like $0.25, not a percentage cut. Only pin transactions have just a per-transaction fee paid by you to the merchant (and you are reimbursed by Schwab). If you use your card with just a signature or online without a pin, then it is a credit transaction from the merchant's perspective. The merchant pays a fee and Schwab gets its cut of that. So for two of the transaction types that you describe, the merchant pays Schwab (indirectly) out of your payment. Only when you enter your pin does it process as a debit transaction where Schwab pays the merchant. Because check cards withdraw the money from your account immediately, you don't even get the twenty to fifty day grace period. So those merchant fees are pure profit for Schwab, offsetting the loss from the ATM fees. You claim $4-5k in fees at $.25 each. That's sixteen to twenty thousand transactions. Assuming that several is four to five years, that's more than ten transactions a day. That seems like a lot. I can see three for meals, one for miscellaneous, and maybe some shopping. But if I go shopping one day, I don't normally go again for a while. I have trouble seeing a consistent average of five or more transactions a day. Even if we use just the higher ATM fees (e.g. $2), that's still more than a transaction a day. That's an extreme level of usage, particularly for someone who also makes frequent purchases via card. I haven't done any other business with them. I find this confusing. How does money get into your account? At some point, you must have deposited money into the account. You can't debit from an account without a positive balance. So you must have done or be doing some kind of business with them. If nothing else, they can invest the balance that you deposit. Note that they make a profit off such investments. They share some of that profit with you in the form of interest, but not that much really. Of course, Schwab may still be losing money on your transactions. We can't really tell without more information on how much of each transaction type you do and how much of a balance you maintain. Perhaps they are hoping that you will do other, more profitable, activities in the future. I doubt there are that many Schwab customers like you describe yourself. As best I've been able to see, they advertise their banking services just to investment customers. So it's unlikely that many customers who don't use their investment services use their banking services just for ATM reimbursements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7e7b0b6b6cd92d8e2039afbaf9c15ed", "text": "Suppose you're writing a put with a strike price of 80. Say the share's(underlying asset) price goes down to 70. So the holder of the put will exercise the option. Ie he has a 'right to sell' a share worth 70 for rs 80. Whereas a put option writer has an 'obligation to buy' at rs 80 a share trading at rs 70. Always think from the perspective of the holder. If the holder exercises the option, the writer will suffer a loss. Maximum loss he suffers will be the break even FSP, which is Strike price reduced by the premium paid.. If he doesn't exercise the option the writer will make a profit, which can maximum be the put premium received.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5d256f69d73c1c1546971bffb32a663d", "text": "\"I disagree with the other respondents. If your tenant is an individual, renting in their individual capacity, there is no reason they need your SSN. They will not be sending a 1099 to you. If your tenant is a business, then your property is not a residential property. It is at least a \"\"corporate housing\"\", and you would have noticed that the contract was signed by a company representative in the capacity of being a company representative, not an individual person. In that case, that representative would also ask you to fill a form W9, on which your tax ID should be reported. I would suggest let the tenant figure out their tax avoidance issues without you being involved.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf4a17e7e53a23ab14726c1951d8ddf1", "text": "The company that's apparently going to pay this rent wants to treat it as a business expense. They are asking for your SSN because they expect to issue a 1099-MISC. (They probably gave you a Form W-9? It's not mandatory but it's common to request a taxpayer ID on this form.) There are a couple of issues at play here:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c4fb00e6b3071eec30e978b68f7d54e", "text": "Maybe you should consider setting up a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) for your business dealings as a landlord and consider providing that instead of your SSN for this type of thing. I am assuming (if this is legitimate) they want it so they can send you a 1099 as they might be obligated to do if they are claiming the rent as a business expense. Also, I'd suggest having the tenant tell their employer to contact you directly. There is no need for the tenant in this situation to also get your SSN/TIN.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cfd81576bb7bf35d9fa0c764680262f3", "text": "\"No. The full text of the Landlord-Tenant Act (specifically, section 554.614 of Act 348 of the year 1972) makes no mention of this. Searching the law for \"\"interest\"\" doesn't yield anything of interest (pardon the pun). Specifically, section 554.604 of the same law states that: (1) The security deposit shall be deposited in a regulated financial institution. A landlord may use the moneys so deposited for any purposes he desires if he deposits with the secretary of state a cash bond or surety bond written by a surety company licensed to do business in this state and acceptable to the attorney general to secure the entire deposits up to $50,000.00 and 25% of any amount exceeding $50,000.00. The attorney general may find a bond unacceptable based only upon reasonable criteria relating to the sufficiency of the bond, and shall notify the landlord in writing of his reasons for the unacceptability of the bond. (2) The bond shall be for the benefit of persons making security deposits with the landlord. A person for whose benefit the bond is written or his legal representative may bring an action in the district, common pleas or municipal court where the landlord resides or does business for collection on the bond. While it does sound like the landlord is required to deposit the money in a bank or other secured form, e.g. the Secretary of State, he/she isn't required to place it in an account that will earn interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5143aeb0b0a00bf3eeba177754bca3aa", "text": "\"Without the specifics of the contract, as well as the specifics of the country/state/city you're moving to, it's hard to say what's legal. But this also isn't law.se, so I'll answer this from the point of view of personal finance, and what you can/should do as next steps. Whenever paying an application fee or a deposit, you need to ensure that you have in writing exactly what you're applying for or putting a deposit in for. Whether this is an apartment, a car, or a loan, before any money changes hands, you need to get in writing exactly what you're putting that money to. So for a car, you'd want to have the complete specifications - make, model, year, color, extra packages, and any relevant loan information if applicable. You wouldn't just hand a dealer $2000 for \"\"a Toyota Camry\"\", you'd make sure it was specified which one, in writing, as well as the total you're expecting to pay. Same for an apartment: you should have, in writing (email is fine) the specific unit you are putting a deposit for, and the specific rate you'll be paying, and the length of time the lease is for. This is to avoid a common tactic: bait and switch, which is what it looks like you've run into. A company puts forth a \"\"nice\"\" model, everything looks good, you get far enough in that it seems like you're locked in - and then it turns out you're really getting a less nice model that's not as ideal as whatever you signed up for. Now if you want to get what you originally signed up for you need to pay extra - presumably \"\"something was wrong in the original ad\"\", or something like that. And all you can hear in the background is Darth Vader... \"\"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.\"\" So; what do you do when you've been bait-and-switched? The best thing to do is typically to walk away. Try to get your application fee back; you may or may not be able to, but it's worth a shot, and even if you cannot, walk away anyway. Someone who is going to bait-and-switch on you is probably not going to be a good landlord; my guess is that rent is going to keep going up beyond the level of the market, and you probably can kiss your security deposit goodbye. Second, if walking away isn't practical for whatever reason, you can find out what the local laws are. Some locations (though very few, sadly) require advertised prices to be accurate; particularly the fact that they re-advertised the unit again for the same rate suggests they are falling afoul of that. You can ask around, search the internet, or best yet talk to a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing; some of them will be willing to at least answer a few questions for free (hoping to score your business for an easy, profitable lawsuit). Be aware that it's not exactly a good situation to be in, to be suing your landlord; second only to suing your employer, in my opinion, in terms of bad things to do while hoping to continue the relationship. Find an alternative as soon as you can if you go this route. In the future, pay a lot of attention to detail when making application fees. Often the application fee is needed before you get into too much detail - but pick a location that has reasonable application fees, and no extras. For example, in my area, it's typical to pay a $25 application fee, nonrefundable, to do the credit check and background check, and a refundable $100-$200 deposit to hold the unit while doing that; a place that asks for a non-refundable deposit is somewhere I'd simply not apply at all.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b5ad6c50ddd6f92617ff2bf39a2fb69", "text": "That may become complicated depending on the State laws. In some States (California for example), LLCs are taxed on gross receipts, so you'll be paying taxes on paying money to yourself. In other States this would be a no-op since the LLC is disregarded. So you need to check your State law. I assume the LLC is not taxed as a corporation since that would be really stupid of course, but if it is then it adds the complexity of the Federal taxes on top as well (corporate entity will pay taxes on your rent, and you'll pay taxes on your dividends to get the money back). The best option would be to take that property out of the LLC (since there's no point in it anyway, if you're the tenant).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1569f93563ab208396b84015c60d687d", "text": "* Absolutely agree with /u/IsAnAlpaca * You /must/ not agree to this without seeing his balance sheet. * That means assets and liabilities, but also ask for the last 12 months' cash flow * Inability or unwillingness to provide any of those things is a HUGE no-go red flag.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fab868581152d6464183e52963bacff7", "text": "\"To the best of my knowledge, in California there's no such thing as registering a place as a business. There's zoning (residential/commercial/mixed/etc), and there's \"\"a business registered at a place\"\". But there's no \"\"place registered as a business\"\". So you better clarify what it is that you think your landlord did. It may be that the place is used for short term rentals, in which case the landlord may have to have registered a business of short term rentals there, depending on the local municipal or county rules. Specifically regarding the deposit, however, there's a very clear treatment in the California law. The landlord must provide itemized receipt for the amounts out of the deposit that were used, and the prices should be reasonable and based on the actual charges by the actual vendors. If you didn't get such a receipt, or the amounts are bogus and unsubstantiated - you have protection under the CA law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "a40bb98efec6409b70151dd126776cff", "text": "I'm assuming this is the US. Is this illegal? Are we likely to be caught? What could happen if caught? If you sign an occupancy affidavit at closing that says you intend to move in within 60-days, with no intention of doing so, then you'll be committing fraud, specifically mortgage/occupancy fraud, a federal crime with potential for imprisonment and hefty fines. In general, moving in late is not something that's likely to be noticed, if the lender is getting their money then they probably don't care. Renting it out prior to moving in seems much riskier, especially if you live in a city/state that requires rental licensing, or are depending on rental income to carry the mortgage. No idea how frequently people are caught/punished for this type of fraud, but it hardly seems worth finding out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b73465541b505fd29eecafb445ece16", "text": "The money your tenants spent on repairs and maintenance that is otherwise your responsibility is considered rent paid to you (and deductible to the extent you can deduct maintenance expenses, provided you have documentation etc etc). The money your tenants spent on utilities, which is their responsibility anyway, is not considered rent paid to you. Since in your question you seem to be mixing both together, it is hard to accept a claim that the additional $300 spent on utilities and maintenance is enough to bring the rent to the FMV level. Especially since the transaction is between related persons, it may bring additional scrutiny of the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5adc69cca3d027f18083e62afca7523", "text": "From the apartment owners perspective what was the purpose of $300? They promised they wouldn't rent it to somebody before you had a chance to see it. But lets say you did see it, and decided you didn't like the view. Would they have to give the money back? if so, why would they promise not to rent it if somebody showed up first? I would have made it clear, as the owner, what the money was for. It was a $300 fee to delay rental. You would have essentially bought x number of days of delay. You could view it as a mini-short-term rental. Of course there should have been paperwork involved. There should have been been a receipt that at least mentioned the amount of money involved. You may need to pay the amount owed, and may need to determine if you want to sue in small claims court. Of course your agent may have some liability based on your contract with them and any paperwork they signed when the money was sent to the owner. The fact that the bank sided with you doesn't mean the courts will.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "669e68311bbc565174483b8e4fc5519f", "text": "\"I'd say your tenant is out $750, not you. How you handle it is totally personal preference. If you want to be the super-nice landlord and eat the loss this one time, then you might gain some karma and hopefully they'll be awesome tenants for the remainder of their stay. Are they the kind of tenants you want to be nice to because they deserve it? You (and she) have no way to prove she ever actually tried to pay you. Sound like she is learning a $750 lesson. \"\"Don't leave cash in a mailbox, and always get a receipt for rent paid.\"\" Your insurance company would likely not pay out as it'd be below a typical deductible and you can't really prove the money ever existed. You'd be better off just taking the loss. Think about it this way: How would you expect a bank or utility company to respond to this situation? \"\"Yeah, I left my mortgage as a cash-filled envelope on your doorstep. You didn't get it? I told you I'd do it!\"\" Guess who's paying double mortgage and a late fee? You're not stuck with option 1, you're choosing to do it. She could refuse and fight you on it, which might not be worth the headache and potential small-claims court. But you're entitled to receive the rent and she is obligated to pay it. And \"\"paying it\"\" means making sure you actually receive it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcfb94807ecbf6a57b0435b1d135e4c6", "text": "\"Assuming the renter was properly vetted, the only question worth asking is \"\"what has changed in your life?\"\" Perhaps one of the earners has lost a job, or has moved out because a couple has broken up. If nothing has changed but they just don't feel like paying you, start the eviction process. If something has changed and you assess that it's temporary (I lent my brother money and he didn't pay me back - I'll be behind for a few months but I will catch up; my employer went out of business and didn't pay me for the last two weeks - I have a new job already and am waiting for my first paycheque) then perhaps you are willing to wait. If something has changed and it seems pretty permanent then you might reluctantly start the process. Depending on how long it takes where you live, the renter might get things under control before you finish.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc944b121bd06b9a75a12eae2177827d", "text": "It actually depends on the services provided. If you're renting through AirBnB, you're likely to provide much more services to the tenants than a traditional rental. It may raise it to a level when it is no longer a passive activity. See here, for starters: Providing substantial services. If you provide substantial services that are primarily for your tenant's convenience, such as regular cleaning, changing linen, or maid service, you report your rental income and expenses on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business, or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business. Use Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, if your rental activity is a partnership (including a partnership with your spouse unless it is a qualified joint venture). Substantial services do not include the furnishing of heat and light, cleaning of public areas, trash collection, etc. For information, see Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. Also, you may have to pay self-employment tax on your rental income using Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax. For a discussion of “substantial services,” see Real Estate Rents in Publication 334, chapter 5", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7c29e9c4ebb6e172ec8547493df051c", "text": "\"If you pay her rent, how do you differ from a tenant in the eyes of the law? I ask this to show that you are in a business relationship first and foremost. If you don't want to file jointly, there is nothing compelling about your situation to force it. (Grant you, in most countries, there is a benefit to filing jointly) but here, I would argue it would be difficult to make the case. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no laws barring opposite sex landlord-tenant rental situations. Furthermore, there are no laws barring romantic relationships amongst landlords and tenants. Indeed, you would need to prove your relationship in some fashion for it to even be considered. In establishing a date of separation from my soon-to-be-ex-wife, for example, I merely needed to prove that we were not \"\"presenting ourselves as husband and wife.\"\" Once I showed that we didn't sit together at church and that she was attending parties I wasn't, that was sufficient. Proving you are in a relationship is actually a lot harder than proving you're not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d3841fc3f6ff1124683964bd1c14213", "text": "Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2b34353f037de897b420fd6ac257afe", "text": "\"Should you negotiate? Yes, what harm can it possibly do? The landlord is unlikely to come back and say \"\"Because you tried to negotiate, I'm putting the rent up by 10% instead.\"\", or to evict a paying tenant merely because they tried to negotiate. Is the proposed rent increase \"\"normal\"\"? Yes. Landlords will generally try to get as high a rent as they can.\"", "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": "f185953aed490ec9c110be633b433b9c", "text": "When I had a high-deductible healthcare plan, I used http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ to do comparisons among the plans. As far as comparing the costs of specific procedures across providers, I'm not aware of any good ways either.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "263ebfef8a5f308be4a90c24ac0a5afd", "text": "A competent Indian VA cost about 4-6 an hour. Realistically speaking, with that budget, nobody is going to be on the phone 8 hours a day 5 days a week. But small tasks and data entry could work. Western VAs are a much pricer but they you can find some for 200 a month. I have a biz that offers similar services, but the price you are looking for is a bit low, but I can work something out if your interested. Otherwise, it would be best to search for NYC based VA companies that have a team of indians working. But what you get is a luck of the draw.", "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": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b", "text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccde069c7755ed62ee56a93b5a2fb5fd", "text": "I would suggest that you try ClearCheckbook. It is kind of like Mint, but you can add and remove things (graphs, features, modules) to make it as simple or diverse as you need it to be. It should be a workable solution for simply tracking both income and expenses, yet it will also provide extra features as needed. There is a free option as well as a paid option with added features. I have not used ClearCheckbook before, but according to their features page it looks like you may have to upgrade to the paid option if you want to have complete tagging/custom field flexibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e73af8ed93d1669a723747bf0477a5f", "text": "\"Yes, you've successfully proved that I think NPV and marginal utility are the same thing. Let me state this explicitly. You didn't hesitate to throw out tools that don't agree with your prescriptions. You invoked the false premise that indivuduals manually and exhaustively calculate NPV of possible decisions. Instead of refuting the points of the argument you resorted to personal attacks. That's fine, I've already lowered my expectations after reading your first comment. If NPV should be thrown out because you claim noone explictly uses it to guide their decisions what does that say about marginal utility? Why should 1 tool be thrown out but the other kept? Essentially you are saying we should keep all of the tools that confirm your absurd assertions and throw out the tools that may cast doubt on them. But hey, maybe I should \"\"stop acting like I know what I'm talking about\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57e1115d5f30efd13813bb51c89ac504", "text": "Hey, I was thinking back to that X-Ray you got done at the hospital, that you said was cheaper than 90% of the population. I am wondering if maybe that hospital wasn't one of the many that qualify for DSH reimbursement payments. What could have happened is that they saw that you are uninsured, and made a decision that they would only charge you for the portion that they didn't think Medicare / Medicaid would reimburse. If that happened, it wouldn't even show up on your credit report, as the hospital is the one that would file a credit claim. Likely, if they have to go through this a lot, they wouldn't even waste time filing a credit claim, they would just go after a reimbursement through Medicare / Medicaid. And thus, to you, it would just look like a very small bill, but in reality it would only represent a smaller portion of the true bill. I would also wonder, if they do a lot of these, if they aren't also one of the hospitals that article I linked to showed was super-inflating the prices of uninsured in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7539b9988f0a814c141ac2ad49451470", "text": "Keep in mind there are some examples of combination medications that have improved outcomes. I'm thinking specifically of HIV meds, HEP C medications, and other combo meds for infectious disease. Truvada for example. It's one pill. Emtricitibine and tenofovir. Taken alone emtricitibine and tenofovir have complex and tedious pill regimens (like most other HIV meds regimens) but for patients to be able to take one pill, once a day has made their compliance with the med regimen much better. Lower viral load, higher cd4 counts, and improved management of their HIV. I'm not saying the absurd price hikes of these other meds are warranted. They're not. But when dealing with public health issues, and infectious disease in a population that has a difficult time being compliant with their meds, combo meds are worth the cost.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0ead864c41156712a3fe4d3e8335176", "text": "Determining the value of a service is an art, not a science. It depends on what others are charging, the quality and complexity and annoyance factor of the work, availability of people with the skill to do the work, etc. This topic can and does fill books, plural, and can't be answered fully here. As a customer, the answer is to get multiple quotes, understand how they differ, and pick the one you are most comfortable with. Last job I priced, I got three quotes, discarded the lowball who didn't know PT from cedar, discarded the one with the luxury price, and went with the guy in the middle who did adequate (not great) work for a tolerable fee. For a different kind of job I might have decided otherwise, or chucked all three and looked for more quotes from respected firms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b0e332ffa8a284d5b2e0173613b0944", "text": "CrimsonX did a great job highlighting the primary pros and cons of HSAs, so I won't go into detail there. However, I did want to point out another pro - HSAs are (or can be) easy to manage. You said: Is this a better way to approach health care costs instead of itemizing health care expenses on yearly federal taxes? I'm not sure which company you are looking at establishing your HSA with, but with mine I have a debit card that I use when paying for medical care and then at the end of the year I get a 1099-SA that provides the amount of money spent on qualified purchases that calendar year. Yes, there are a few extra boxes I need to fill in for my 1040 come tax time, but I don't need to itemize my healthcare costs over the year. It really is pretty simple and straightforward. Also, one con that is worth noting is that you become much more sensitive to healthcare costs due to the high deductible healthcare plan an HSA requires. For example, in all the years we've had an HSA we've not yet met our deductible, which means we pay out of pocket for any non-routine doctor visits. (The health insurer pays 100% of routine visits, like my wife's annual, well-baby check ups for the little one, and so on.) So, when you're feeling really sick and think a doctor's visit would be warranted, you have to make a decision: After being faced with this decision a time or two you will start to envy those who have just a $20 copay! Of course, that's just an emotional con. Each year I run the numbers on how much we spent per year on out of pocket plus premiums and compare it to what it would cost in premiums for an HMO-type plan, and the HSA plan always comes ahead. (In part because we are a pretty healthy family and I work for myself so do not get to enjoy group discount rates.) But I thought it worth mentioning because there are certainly times when I know I need to see a doctor or specialist and I cringe because I know I am going to be slapped with a big bill in the not too distant future!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5bec49fc704181aa03613c3ead464a2", "text": "\"Lets put glib non-answers into perspective. - There is not a single number: how many wounds. Then, dividing the total per this value, you'd know a bit more. - They are generous in a lot of other percentages which, of course, mean crap without this. 5.8% of what? Is that 5 people shot, or 50000? - The % of people without insurance is interesting, but a far more interesting value would be: X of the value is uninsured, in Y of the wounds. Then you'd know whether uninsured wounds are costlier on average. - There is a 20 to 1 differential in 5000 to 100 000. Doesn't really tell us either average or median. - What cost is accounted? Cost first billed? Values actually paid? Accounting cost of the actual care? Same price measure for the ones insured, and the ones uninsured? A standardized cost per types of wounds? If an hospital charges 100000 for the same another asks 20000 for, its meaningless. Societal cost is one thing, the billing fantasies of the american health system another. If you fail to understand what is contained in what you read, and then again fail to understand when it is pointed out, then you do waste a lot of resources. For those that CAN read, you can see how a full article can be read and published that contains no real information or original thought or research about a problem, being useless to define it. Its a \"\"feel this\"\" piece, knowledge is optional.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99e521f85fb70eeed53177745a07f388", "text": "I'm not disputing that. I just said in answer to the guy pointing out that indonesian people earn less that this price might be higher than what the locals pay. Often hospitals will have higher prices for foreigners with insurance etc. So I was actually strengthening your point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24a78ce01e579101c6b2cf6529438d5b", "text": "It is meant to be a Valuation Model. So the data I have collected are for the Addressable Markets in potential countries( i.e. population currently affected by the disease and potential growth of the disease in the future). Possible competition for the drug. And most importantly the expenses of the drug (how much it cost to create the drug and clinical trails etc.) I need to create a Revenue chart and the Pricing for the drug as well. What I am looking for is someone who is familiar with creating a valuation model or has a template and can give me advice on how to structure this. thanks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64c4ccde4ee50cfa5b1328ff7781c804", "text": "\"I had a similar issue take place at a hospital when the repeatedly billed the \"\"wrong me\"\" -- a stale insurance record left behind from when I was a dependent on my parent's insurance a decade earlier. They ended up billing me for anesthesia when I had a major surgery (everything else was billed to the correct insurance.) The outsourced billing people were pretty unhelpful (not usually the case with hospitals), so I became the squeaky wheel. I sent certified letters, had my priest rattle the cage (it was a Catholic hospital) and eventually talked myself into a meeting with the VP of Finance, who started paying attention when the incompetence of his folks became apparent. Total cost: $0 + my time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d8b5d2d18ca80beb458fb984738ce57", "text": "\"Whoa whoa whoa, let's not twist that data and make an assertion that it doesn't support. Yes, medical inflation has outpaced the CPI for ages, *but* when you disaggregate spending into Medicare (US single-payer) and private insurers, [Medicare is able to better contain costs](http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/2/230.full) (my hypothesis: likely due to its ability to leverage its scale and keep costs low, while private insurers are fragmented against strong provider networks). But wait! you're thinking: shouldn't market forces keep insurance outlays low? It's Econ 101, right? Theoretically they should, but this ignores the industrial structure of healthcare providers and assumes perfect competition that doesn't exist. Typically, providers (doctors groups, hospitals, etc) are [highly localized and able to exercise significant market power in a community](http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/2/8.full) relative to several insurance plans who are competing to contract that provider \"\"in-network.\"\" For example, when Aetna, Cigna, and BCBS go up against, hypothetically, Cedars-Sinai to negotiate payment rates, Cedars has the ability to obtain high reimbursement rates because the three insurers have to have that provider in-network to remain competitive. Ironically, the less competition on the insurer side in that market, the better reimbursement rates would be observed since the sole insurer would capture a large fraction of patients in the geographic area served and could use that volume to negotiate better rates. Finally, there's the overhead issue. Medicare has lower overhead expenses than private insurers do (again, my guess: greater economies of scale and lower advertising and marketing costs, coupled with no profit motive). [Even health insureres themselves agree (.pdf warning)](http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/CAHI_Medicare_Admin_Final_Publication.pdf) that Medicare has lower overhead costs, and that includes some questionable addition of what the authors claim are hidden Medicare expenses. I'm inclined to believe that a single-payer is probably more efficient and cheaper than a fragmented private insurance market. That said, I also find some sympathy to the argument that maintaining a robust private insurance market may spur innovation on payor innovation (e.g., increased participation in wellness programs for enrollees, or increasing the likelihood that patients be more sensitive to costs and benefits when seeking care). After all, countries like Germany and Switzerland are able to maintain a private insurance market while ensuring nearly universal coverage. Either way, though, arguing that health inflation alone makes single payer systems \"\"mathematicaly unsustainable\"\" isn't a strong argument, since private insurers are currently doing **worse** on cost containment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3986b8ad3cefc7cfe6ef7d44ea9dd44b", "text": "On topic of Healthcare needs, I think it depend on individual. For example, my employer's dental plan offer PPO $34 per month and DMO $12 per month. I have my favor dentist that I have been going for years. He only accept PPO. I already had most of my dental works done so I only use him for teeth clean. He charge $100 without insurance and free with insurance. I can only use my insurance for teeth clean twice a year so $34x12 = $408 vs $200. If I go with DMO, I won't get to see my doctor and since I get my teeth once a year why not just save that money and go to my favor doctor instead the DMO doctors and if I need major dental works done which isn't immediate. I can go to Taiwan for dental works that is way cheaper than U.S. I think if you're a healthy young man/women. You should put more money toward your retirement and only keep insurance for emergency. You can do a medical tourism mentioned in 60 minutes that can be more cost effective and those doctors are U.S. trained. For older folks, a full Health care insurance is more needed than retirement. Just my two cents.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "87b5c999ab6c956258894265f2a2b654", "text": "This is a question of how does someone value a business. Typically, it is some function of how much the company owns, how much the company owes, how risky is the company's business, and how much the company makes in profit. For example if a company (or investment) make $100/year, every year no matter what, how much would you pay for that? If you pay $1,000 you'll make 10% each year on your investment. Is that a good enough return? If you think the risk of the company requires a 20% payoff, you shouldn't pay more than $500 for the company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b77ce1eda52bbf046d67670793dc2e8d", "text": "You have a lot of different questions in your post - I am only responding to the request for how to value the ESPP. When valuing an ESPP, don't think about what you might sell the shares for in the future, think about what the market would charge you for that option today. In general, an option is worth much less than the underlying share itself. For the simplest example, assume you work at a public company, and your exercise price for your options is $.30, and you can only exercise those options until the end of today, and the cost of the shares on the public stock exchange is also $.30. You have the same 'strike price' as everyone else in the market, making your option worth nothing. In truth, holding that right to a specific strike price into the future does give you value, because it means you can realize the upside in share price gains, without risking any money on share losses. So, how do you value the options? If it's a public company with an active options market, you can easily compare your $.30 strike price with the value of call options in the market that have a $.30 strike price. That becomes the value to you of the option (caveat: it is unlikely you can find an exact match for the terms of your vesting period, but you should be able to find a good starting point). If it's a public company without an active options market, you will have to do a bit of estimation. If a current share is worth $.25 (so, close to your strike price), then your option is worth a little bit, but not much. Compare other shares in your industry / company size to get examples of the relative value between an option and a share. If the current share price is worth $.35, then your option is worth about $.05 [the $.05 profit you could get by immediately exercising and selling, plus a bit more for an option on a share that you can't buy in the open market]. If it's a private company, then you need to be very clear on how shares are to be valued, and what methods you have available to sell back to the company / other individuals. You can then consider as per above, how to value the option for a share, vs the share itself. Without a clear way to sell your shares of a private company [ideally through a sale directly back to the company that you are able to force them to agree on; ie: the company will buyback shares at 5x Net income for the previous year, or something like that], then the value of a small number of shares is very nebulous. There is an extremely limited market for shares of private companies, if you don't own enough to exert control. In your case, because the valuation appears to be $2/share [be sure that these are the same share classes you have the option to buy], your option would be worth a little more than $1.70, if you didn't have to wait 4 years to exercise it. This would be total compensation of about $10k, if you were able to exercise today. Many people don't end up working for an early job in their career for 4 years, so you need to consider whether how much that will reduce the value of the ESPP for you personally. Compared with salary of 90k, 10k worth of stock in 4 years may not be a heavy motivating compensation consideration. Note also that because the company is not public, the valuation of $2/share should be taken with a grain of salt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5467dcadbea676578ee66dca23e951b4", "text": "\"I think it's easiest to illustrate it with an example... if you've already read any of the definitions out there, then you know what it means, but just don't understand what it means. So, we have an ice cream shop. We started it as partners, and now you and I each own 50% of the company. It's doing so well that we decide to take it public. That means that we will be giving up some of our ownership in return for a chance to own a smaller portion of a bigger thing. With the money that we raise from selling stocks, we're going to open up two more stores. So, without getting into too much of the nitty gritty accounting that would turn this into a valuation question, let's say we are going to put 30% of the company up for sale with these stocks, leaving you and me with 35% each. We file with the SEC saying we're splitting up the company ownership with 100,000 shares, and so you and I each have 35,000 shares and we sell 30,000 to investors. Then, and this depends on the state in the US where you're registering your publicly traded corporation, those shares must be assigned a par value that a shareholder can redeem the shares at. Many corporations will use $1 or 10 cents or something nominal. And we go and find investors who will actually pay us $5 per share for our ice cream shop business. We receive $150,000 in new capital. But when we record that in our accounting, $5 in total capital per share was contributed by investors to the business and is recorded as shareholder's equity. $1 per share (totalling $30,000) goes towards actual shares outstanding, and $4 per share (totalling $120,000) goes towards capital surplus. These amounts will not change unless we issue new stocks. The share prices on the open market can fluctuate, but we rarely would adjust these. Edit: I couldn't see the table before. DumbCoder has already pointed out the equation Capital Surplus = [(Stock Par Value) + (Premium Per Share)] * (Number of Shares) Based on my example, it's easy to deduce what happened in the case you've given in the table. In 2009 your company XYZ had outstanding Common Stock issued for $4,652. That's probably (a) in thousands, and (b) at a par value of $1 per share. On those assumptions we can say that the company has 4,652,000 shares outstanding for Year End 2009. Then, if we guess that's the outstanding shares, we can also calculate the implicit average premium per share: 90,946,000 ÷ 4,652,000 == $19.52. Note that this is the average premium per share, because we don't know when the different stocks were issued at, and it may be that the premiums that investors paid were different. Frankly, we don't care. So clearly since \"\"Common Stock\"\" in 2010 is up to $9,303 it means that the company released more stock. Someone else can chime in on whether that means it was specifically a stock split or some other mechanism... it doesn't matter. For understanding this you just need to know that the company put more stock into the marketplace... 9,303 - 4,652 == 4,651(,000) more shares to be exact. With the mechanics of rounding to the thousands, I would guess this was a stock split. Now. What you can also see is that the Capital Surplus also increased. 232,801 - 90,946 == 141,855. The 4,651,000 shares were issued into the market at an average premium of 141,855 ÷ 4,651 == $30.50. So investors probably paid (or were given by the company) an average of $31.50 at this split. Then, in 2011 the company had another small adjustment to its shares outstanding. (The Common Stock went up). And there was a corresponding increase in its Capital Surplus. Without details around the actual stock volumes, it's hard to get more exact. You're also only giving us a portion of the Balance Sheet for your company, so it's hard to go into too much more detail. Hopefully this answers your question though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235d9911f024b3047fa915c0789caa18", "text": "There are different ways to determine the value of a company: When an entrepreneur starts a new company himself and owns 100% of the company, the Fair Market value is unknown. He has put his own money into the company, so it has a high Investment value to him, meaning he has a lot at stake in the company. The Asset value is probably less than the Investment value, meaning if he closed the company, he would lose some of the money he invested. Now, using your example, a Venture Capitalist comes along and takes a look at the company. She believes that the company has a great future potential to make money, which means that she believes that the Intrinsic value is very high. She decides to invest $1 Million in the company for a 10% stake, and the founder agrees. The Fair Market value of the company at that moment is $10 Million. The VC believes that the Intrinsic value of the company is more than $10 Million and that she is making a good investment. The Asset value of the company just went up by $1 Million. To answer your question, the $1 Million is not the founder's to spend on a new house. It is the company's money. However, the founder owns 90% of the company. The new capital will allow the company to buy whatever assets the company needs to meet the potential that the founder and the VC see in it, and make the company grow and earn money for the two investors. A crooked founder could, theoretically, close down the company immediately and pocket 90% of the new cash, but there are certainly legal protections in the contract they signed when the investment was made that prevent him from doing that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "821e3eecf2857fc1405d1f4b33e8d359", "text": "The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now. You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future. So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income. Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right? Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0. So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.) Did that help?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4bef758a078cff5aded80dbc6fc24be", "text": "\"Matt explains the study numbers in his answer, but those are the valuation of the brand, not the value of the company or how \"\"rich\"\" the company is. Presuming that you're asking the value of the company, the usual way for a publicly traded company to be valued is by the market capitalization (1). Market capitalization is a fairly simple measure, basically the total value of all the shares of stock in that company. You can find the market cap for any publicly traded company on any of the usual finance sites like Google Finance or Yahoo Finance. If by rich you mean the total value of assets (assets being all property, including cash, real property, equipment, and licenses) a company owns, that information is included in a publicly traded company's quarterly SEC filing and investor releases, but isn't usually listed on the popular finance sites. An example can be seen at Duke Energy's Investor Relation Site (the same information can be found for all companies on EDGAR, the SEC's search tool). If you open the most recent 8-K (quarterly filing), and go to page 8, you can see that they have $33B+ in assets, and a high level breakdown of those. Note that the numbers are given in millions of dollars For a privately held company this information may or may not be available and you'd have to track it down if it is available. I picked Duke Energy because it's the first thing that popped into my mind. I have no affiliation with Duke, and I don't directly own any of their stock.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6", "text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bbcb90aefee6b1b90f85ab10a1b6d5", "text": "While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98ec745c6a8e74d555e9e026298ed9a2", "text": "It is difficult to value a private company. Most of the valuations is based on how one feels the idea would translate into revenue in some future time. The VC firms take into account various factors to determine the price, but more often then not, its their hunch. Even VC don't make money on all picks, very few picks turn out to be stars, most picks lose money they have invested. Few picks just return their money. So if you feel that the idea/product/brand/people are great and would someday make good money, invest into it. Else stay away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e656547f1bc1d937b6442ccc45a63ab2", "text": "When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "718c94c2f02d2b07d82175dba8776ff6", "text": "\"The company gets the proceeds from the sales of shares on the open market. If a company is selling 1,000,000 shares at $12/share then they will receive $12,000,000 from the underwriter minus some fees that the underwriter will collect. The part that ties into valuation is to consider what percentage is the company selling of itself that is coming from its own holdings. If the company is putting out 10% of its shares in the IPO from treasury holdings on a $10B valuation then it will get $1B minus the fees I'd suspect. Where I worked in late 1990s/early 2000s had an IPO where the underwriter did a bridge loan and the IPO so that the company didn't get all the money raised but did get enough to run operations for a while before ending operations. Public Offering notes that after an IPO other offerings would be called \"\"seasoned equity offering\"\" that may or may not be dilutive as they could come from new or existing shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578", "text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1343c7ed17d2c9d9ea47022e828c951c", "text": "Not sure of the question here if by IPO(initial public offering) you mean private company then: A company can invest its excess money into other companies, to earn returns. Also a company that is private can attract private investment if the sector is doing well on publicly traded markets. Finally a company can diversify away risk, by holding shares of a company that would benefit in the event of a disruption in their own industry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e30c1a9481ded4a26c6feb5502718faa", "text": "My understanding is you can create a company 0 value. Then you need to either loan the company the money to buy the building (it will still have 0 value as it will have a debt equal to it's assets) or sell share to investors at any price you like to raise the money to buy the building. Once shares have value (as valued by a chartered accountant - not anyone can do this) then anyone recieving shares will have to pay income tax. This is why keeping the shares as no value for as long as possible can be preferable. Also a benefit of using share options. talk to your investors, see what they require.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3f2365912ad92fdb6806f5009bb20a8", "text": "As far as I know, the AMT implications are the same for a privately held company as for one that is publicly traded. When I was given my ISO package, it came with a big package of articles on AMT to encourage me to exercise as close to the strike price as possible. Remember that the further the actual price at the time of purchase is from the strike price, the more the likely liability for AMT. That is an argument for buying early. Your company should have a common metric for determining the price of the stock that is vetted by outside sources and stable from year to year that is used in a similar way to the publicly traded value when determining AMT liability. During acquisitions stock options often, from what I know of my industry, at least, become options in the new company's stock. This won't always happen, but its possible that your options will simply translate. This can be valuable, because the price of stock during acquisition may triple or quadruple (unless the acquisition is helping out a very troubled company). As long as you are confident that the company will one day be acquired rather than fold and you are able to hold the stock until that one day comes, or you'll be able to sell it back at a likely gain, other than tying up the money I don't see much of a downside to investing now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c4d3ea50aad7d39d3a7495aa8e3924", "text": "Book value = sell all assets and liquidate company . Then it's the value of company on book. Price = the value at which it's share gets bought or sold between investors. If price to book value is less than one, it shows that an 100$ book value company is being traded at 99$ or below. At cheaper than actually theoretical price. Now say a company has a production plant . Situated at the most costliest real estate . Yet the company's valuation is based upon what it produces, how much orders it has etc while real estate value upon which plant is built stays in book while real investors don't take that into account (to an extend). A construction company might own a huge real estate inventory. However it might not be having enough cash flow to sustain monthly expense. In this scenario , for survival,i the company might have to sell its real estate at discount. And market investors are fox who could smell trouble and bring price way below the book value Hope it helps", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4947e3208e0f0fd6a510771e77a0b9e3", "text": "If he can't manage, best is he sells it off. Its easier to manage cash. Not sure what tax you are talking about. He should have already paid tax on fair market value of the 20 flats. If the intention of Mr X is to gift to son by way of death, then yes the tax will be less. Else whenever Mr X sells there will be tax. how to manage these 20 apartments? Hire a broker. He may front run quite a few things like showing the place etc. There is a risk if he is given a free hand, he may not get good quality tenant. There are quite a few shark brokers [its unregulated] who may arm twist seeing the opportunity of an old man with 20 flats. See if you can do long term lease with companies looking for guest house etc, or certain companies who run guest house. They would like the scale, generally 3-5 years contracts are done. The rent is good and overall less hassle. The risk is most would ask to invest more in furnishing and contracts can be terminated in months notice. If the property is in large metro [Delhi/Bangalore/Chennai/etc] These places have good property management companies. Ensure that you have independent lawyer; there are certain aspects of law that may need to be studied.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5a6e5ffd6b132189f7b39f5213d9725", "text": "I have no idea about India, but in many countries there are companies that specialize in property management. This means they will take on the business of maintaining the properties, finding tenants, doing paperwork and background checks, collecting rents and evicting tenants if necessary. Obviously for this they require a fee, but essentially the owner gets to sit back and do nothing except collect a cheque every month. In my country some real estate agents are in this business as well, though for 20 apartments I would be looking for a specialized firm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8daccb4c7d1963417fafccde3f1149a4", "text": "There are many property management companies are available in India. You can easily find trusted companies just searching on the google. They manage all these things legally. You just try this", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4ac2c64ce70259bde39978411a151518", "text": "\"with 150K € to invest to \"\"become a landlord\"\" you have several options: Pay for 100% of one property, and you then will make a significant percentage of the monthly rent as profit each month. That profit can be used to invest in other things, or to save to buy additional properties. At the end of the 21 years in your example, you can sell the flat for return of principal minus selling expenses, or even better make a profit because the property went up in value. Pay 20% down on 5 flats, and then make a much a smaller profit per flat each month due to the mortgage payment for each one. At the end of the 21 years sell the flats. Assuming that a significant portion of the mortgage is paid off each flat will sell for more than the mortgage balance. Thus you will have 5 nice large profits when you sell. something in between 1 and 5 flats. Each has different risks and expenses. With 5 rental properties you are more likely to use a management company, which will add to your monthly cost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32f65fc97fd635d2e2758c4e3e51da9d", "text": "I owned and managed a few residential properties. At one time the net cash flow was on the order of $1000 per month. But it was work. Lots of work. I was managing about 7 units. This does not count the gains in capital appreciation which were significant. Using a management company would have put the cash flow at 0 or in the negative and would have lowered the quality of management IMO. Nothing comes for free...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "186949c06eb488b98bb884fff413d4d4", "text": "Renting a house out using a management company is mostly passive income. Earning affiliate income from companies that pay on a recurring basis is closer to passive income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0255b03e9b26ac7886bc7db1ca7075a", "text": "\"I agree with Joe Taxpayer that a lot of details are missing to really evaluate it as an investment... for context, I own a few investment properties including a 'small' 10+ unit apartment complex. My answer might be more than you really want/need, (it kind of turned into Real Estate Investing 101), but to be fair you're really asking 3 different questions here: your headline asks \"\"how effective are Condo/Hotel developments as investments?\"\" An answer to that is... sometimes, very. These are a way for you-the investor-to get higher rents per sq. ft. as an owner, and for the hotel to limit its risks and access additional development funding. By your description, it sounds like this particular company is taking a substantial cut of rents. I don't know this property segment specifically, but I can give you my insight for longer-term apartment rentals... the numbers are the same at heart. The other two questions you're implying are \"\"How effective is THIS condo/hotel development?\"\" and \"\"Should you buy into it?\"\" If you have the funds and the financial wherewithal to honestly consider this, then I am sure that you don't need your hand held for the investment pros/cons warnings of the last question. But let me give you some of my insight as far as the way to evaluate an investment property, and a few other questions you might ask yourself before you make the decision to buy or perhaps to invest somewhere else. The finance side of real estate can be simple, or complicated. It sounds like you have a good start evaluating it, but here's what I would do: Start with figuring out how much revenue you will actually 'see': Gross Potential Income: 365 days x Average Rent for the Room = GPI (minus) Vacancy... you'll have to figure this out... you'll actually do the math as (Vacancy Rate %) x GPI (equals) Effective Potential Income = EPI Then find out how much you will actually pocket at the end of the day as operating income: Take EPI (minus) Operating expenses ... Utilities ... Maintenace ... HOA ... Marketing if you do this yourself (minus) Management Expenses ... 40% of EPI ... any other 'fees' they may charge if you manage it yourself. ... Extra tax help? (minus) Debt Service ... Mortgage payment ... include Insurances (property, PMI, etc) == Net Operating Income (NOI) Now NOI (minus) Taxes == Net Income Net Income (add back) Depreciation (add back) sometimes Mortgage Interest == After-tax Cash Flows There are two \"\"quickie\"\" numbers real estate investors can spout off. One is the NOI, the other is the Cap Rate. In order to answer \"\"How effective is THIS development?\"\" you'll have to run the numbers yourself and decide. The NOI will be based on any assumptions you choose to make for vacancy rates, actual revenue from hotel room bookings, etc. But it will show you how much you should bring in before taxes each year. If you divide the NOI by the asking price of your unit (and then multiply by 100), you'll get the \"\"Cap Rate\"\". This is a rough estimate of the rate of return you can expect for your unit... if you buy in. If you come back and say \"\"well I found out it has a XX% cap rate\"\", we won't really be qualified to help you out. Well established mega investment properties (think shopping centers, office buildings, etc.) can be as low as 3-5 cap rates, and as high as 10-12. The more risky the property, the higher your return should be. But if it's something you like, and the chance to make a 6% return feels right, then that's your choice. Or if you have something like a 15% cap rate... that's not necessarily outstanding given the level of risk (uncertain vacancies) involved in a hotel. Some other questions you should ask yourself include: How much competition is there in the area for short-term lodging? This could drive vacancies up or down... and rents up or down as well How 'liquid' will the property (room) be as an asset? If you can just break even on operating expense, then it might still make sense as an investment if you think that it might appreciate in value AND you would be able to sell the unit to someone else. How much experience does this property management company have... (a) in general, (b) running hotels, and (c) running these kinds of condo-hotel combination projects? I would be especially interested in what exactly you're getting in return for paying them 40% of every booking. Seasonality? This will play into Joe Taxpayer's question about Vacancy Rates. Your profile says you're from TX... which hints that you probably aren't looking at a condo on ski slopes or anything, but if you're looking at something that's a spring break-esque destination, then you might still have a great run of high o during March/April/May/June, but be nearly empty during October/November/December. I hope that helps. There is plenty of room to make a more \"\"exact\"\" model of what your cash flows might look like, but that will be based on assumptions and research you're probably not making at this time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f47d532ee2ff1cd4da42aa86e7f3042", "text": "Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) and the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) have different end of term dates but by less than a month. Both have summer sessions, but most students do not stay over the summer. You can rent over the summer, but prices fall by a lot. Thirty to forty thousand students leave over the summer between the two. Only ten to twenty thousand remain throughout the year and not all of those are in Oakland (the neighborhood in Pittsburgh where the universities are located). So many of the landlords in Oakland have the same problem. Your competitors will cut their rates to try to get some rent for the summer months. This also means that you have to handle eight, nine, and three month leases rather than year long and certainly not multiyear leases. You're right that you don't have to buy the latest appliances or the best finishes, but you still have to replace broken windows and doors. Also, the appliances and plumbing need to mostly work. The furnace needs to produce heat and distribute it. If there is mold or mildew, you will have to take care of it. You can't rely on the students doing so. So you have to thoroughly clean the premises between tenants. Students may leave over winter break. If there are problems, the pipes may freeze and burst, etc. Since they're not there, they won't let you know when things break. Students drop out during the term and move out. You probably won't be able to replace them when that happens. If you have three people in two bedrooms, two of them may be in a romantic relationship. Romantic relationships among twenty-year olds end frequently. Your three people drops back to two. Your recourse in that case is to evict the remaining tenants and sue for breach of contract. But if you do that, you may not replace the tenants until a new term starts. Better might be to sue the one who left and accept the lower rent from the other two. But you likely won't get the entire rent amount for the remainder of the lease. Suing an impoverished student is not the road to riches. Pittsburgh is expected to have a 6.1% increase in house prices which almost all of it is going to be pure profit. I don't know specifically about Pittsburgh, but in the national market, housing prices are about where they were in 2004. Prices were flat to increasing from 2004 to 2007 and then fell sharply from 2007 to 2009, were flat to decreasing from 2009 to 2012, and have increased the last few years. Price to rent ratios are as high now as in 2003 and higher than they were the twenty years before that. Maybe prices do increase. Or maybe we hit a new 20% decrease. I would not rely on this for profit. It's great if you get it, but unreliable. I wouldn't rely on estimates for middle class homes to apply to what are essentially slum apartments. A 6% average may be a 15% increase in one place and a 3% decrease in another. The nice homes with the new appliances and the fancy finishes may get the 15% increase. The rundown houses in a block where students party past 2 AM may get no increase. Both the city of Pittsburgh and the county of Allegheny charge property taxes. Schools and libraries charge separate taxes. The city provides a worksheet that estimates $2860 in taxes on a $125,000 property. It doesn't sound like you would be eligible for homestead or senior tax relief. Realtors should be able to tell you the current assessment and taxes on the properties that they are selling you. You should be able to call a local insurance agent to find out what kinds of insurance are available to landlords. There is also renter's insurance which is paid by the tenant. Some landlords require that tenants show proof of insurance before renting. Not sure how common that is in student housing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de2f8020f2afe5a02fa537ebb9f85250", "text": "\"To be completely honest, I think that a target of 10-15% is very high and if there were an easy way to attain it, everyone would do it. If you want to have such a high return, you'll always have the risk of losing the same amount of money. Option 1 I personally think that you can make the highest return if you invest in real estate, and actively manage your property(s). If you do this well with short term rental and/or Airbnb I think you can make healthy returns BUT it will cost a lot of time and effort which may diminish its appeal. Think about talking to your estate agent to find renters, or always ensuring your AirBnB place is in good nick so you get a high rating and keep getting good customers. If you're looking for \"\"passive\"\" income, I don't think this is a good choice. Also make sure you take note of karancan's point of costs. No matter what you plan for, your costs will always be higher than you think. Think about water damage, a tenant that breaks things/doesn't take care of stuff etc. Option 2 I think taking a loan is unnecessarily risky if you're in good financial shape (as it seems), unless you're gonna buy a house with a mortgage and live in it. Option 3 I think your best option is to buy bonds and shares. You can follow karancan's 100 minus your age rule, which seems very reasonable (personally I invest all my money in shares because that's how my father brought me up, but it's really a matter of taste. Both can be risky though bonds are usually safer). I think I should note that you cannot expect a return of 10% or more because, as everyone always says, if there were a way to guarantee it, everyone would do it. You say you don't have any idea how this works so I'd go to my bank and ask them. You probably have access to private banking so that should mean someone will be able to sit you down and talk you through. Also look at other banks that have better rates and/or pretend you're leaving your bank to negotiate a better deal. If I were you I'd invest in blue chips (big international companies listed on the main indeces (DAX, FTSE 100, Dow Jones)), or (passively managed) mutual funds/ETFs that track these indeces. Just remember to diversify by country and industry a bit. Note: i would not buy the vehicles/plans that my bank (no matter what they promise, and they promise a lot) suggest because if you do that then the bank always takes a cut off your money. TlDr, dont expect to make 10-15% on a passive investment and do what a lot of others do: shares and bonds. Also make sure you get a lot of peoples opinions :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a66f38ae2cba550a0b1745a99f4782ac", "text": "Approach property management companies. I work for one with hundreds of properties and we need plumbers all the time. On the business side it simplifies your marketing and repeat business. We get potted flowers and candy from vendors all the time. Or they bring in pizza for lunch once a quarter to keep the relationship up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad92aef2db18e00c11a34e335a8493c", "text": "Well for starters you want to rent it for more than the apartment costs you. Aside from mortgage you have insurance, and maintenance costs. If you are going to have a long term rental property you need to make a profit, or at a bare minimum break even. Personally I would not like the break even option because there are unexpected costs that turn break even into a severe loss. Basically the way I would calculate the minimum rent for an apartment I owned would be: (Payment + (taxes/12) + (other costs you provide) + (Expected annual maintenance costs)) * 100% + % of profit I want to make. This is a business arrangement. Unless you are recouping some of your losses in another manner then it is bad business to maintain a business relationship that is costing you money. The only thing that may be worth considering is what comparable rentals go for in your area. You may be forced to take a loss if the rental market in your area is depressed. But I suspect that right now your condo is renting at a steal of a rate. I would also suspect that the number you get from the above formula falls pretty close to what the going rate in your area is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e912dbff135225ac31d53bff72a6ff8", "text": "\"I am surprised at the amount of work this contract wants done. I'd question if it's even legal given the high costs. I suspect it's only there to remind abusive tenants of responsibilities they already have in law for extraordinary abuse beyond ordinary wear-and-tear: they are already on the hook to repaint if they trash the paint (think: child writing on walls, happens a lot), and already need to fumigate (and a lot more) if they are a filth-type hoarder who brings in a serious infestation (happens a lot). The landlord can already go after these people for additional money beyond the deposit. But that's not you. So don't freak out about those clauses, until you talk to the landlord and see what he's really after. Almost certainly, he really wants a \"\"fit and ready to rent\"\" unit upon your departure, so he doesn't have to take the unit off the market for months fixing it. As long as that's done, there's no reasonable reason for further work -- a decent landlord wouldn't require that. Nor would a court, IMO. The trouble with living in a place for awhile is you become blind to its deficiencies. What's more, it's rather difficult to \"\"size up\"\" a unit as ready when it's still occupied by your stuff. A unit will look rather different when reduced to a bare room, without furniture and whatnot distracting you. Add to it a dose of vanity and it becomes hard to convince yourself of defects others will easily see. So, tread carefully here. If push comes to shove, first stop is whether it's even legal. Cities and states with heavy tenant populations tend to have much more detailed laws, and as a rule, they favor the tenant. Right off the bat, in most states the tenant is not responsible for ordinary wear-and-tear. In my opinion, 6 years of ordinary, exempt wear would justify a repaint, so that shouldn't be on the tenant at all. As for the fumigation, I'm not in Florida so I don't know the deal, maybe there's some special environmental issue there which somehow makes that reasonable, it sure wouldn't fly in CA. Again that assumes you're a reasonable prudent tenant, not a slob or hoarder. As for the pro carpet cleaning, that's par for the course in any of the tough rent control areas I've seen, so that's gotten a pass from the legislators. Though $600 seems awfully high. Other than that, you can argue the terms are \"\"unconscionable\"\" -- too much of a raw deal to even be fair. However, this will depend on the opinion of a judge. Hit or miss. I'm hoping your landlord will be happy to negotiate based on the good condition of the unit (which he may not know; landlords rarely visit tenant units unless they really need to.) You certainly should make the case that you make here; that the work is not really needed and it's prohibitive. Your best defense against unconscionable deals is don't sign them. Remember, you didn't know the guy when you initially signed... the now-objectionable language should have been a big red flag back then, saying this guy is epic evil, run screaming. (even if that turned out not to be true, you should't have hung around to find out.) You may have gotten lucky this time, but don't make that mistake again. Unless one of the above pans out, though... a deal is a deal. You gave your word. The powerful act here is to keep your word. Forgive me for getting ontological, but successful people say it creates success for them. And here's the thing. You have to read your contracts because you can't keep your word if you don't know what word you gave. It's a common mistake: thinking good business is trust, hope, faith, submission or giving your all. No. In business, you take the time to hammer out mutually beneficial (win-win) agreements, and you set them on paper to eliminate confusion, argument and stress in the future as memories fade and conditions change. That conflict resolution is how business partners remain friends, or at least professional colleagues.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d2dca01d9cfa77aa73046505321e972", "text": "\"I see two important things missing from your ongoing costs: maintenance and equipment. I also don't see the one-time costs of buying and moving. Maintenance involves doing some boring math like \"\"roofs go every 20 years or so and a new roof would cost $20k, so I need $1000 a year in the roof fund. Furnaces go every 20 years and cost $5k, so I need $250 a year in the furnace fund.\"\" etc etc. Use your own local numbers for both how long things last and how much they cost to replace. One rule of thumb is a percentage of the house (not house and land) price each year keeping in mind that while roof, furnace, carpet, stove, toilets etc all need to get replaced eventually, not everything does - the walls for example cost a lot to build but don't wear out - and not all at a 20 year pace. Some is more often, some is less often. I've heard 5% but think that's too high. Try 3% maybe? So if you paid $200,000 for a $100,000 house sitting on $100,000 of land, you put $3000 a year or about $250 a month into a repair fund. Then ignore it until something needs to be repaired. When that happens, fund the repair from the savings. If you're lucky, there will always be enough in there. If the house is kind of old and on its last legs, you might need to start with a 10 or 20k infusion into that repair fund. Equipment means a lawnmower and trimmer, a snow shovel, tools for fixing things (screwdriver, hammer, glue, pliers, that sort of thing.) Maybe tools for gardening or other hobbies that house-owners are likely to have. You might need to prune back some trees or bushes if nothing else. Eventually you get tools for your tools such as a doo-dad for sharpening your lawnmower. Well, lots of doo-dads for sharpening lots of things. One time expenses include moving, new curtains, appliances if they don't come with the house, possibly new furniture if you would otherwise have a lot of empty rooms, paint and painting equipment, and your housewarming party. There are also closing costs associated with buying a house, and you might need to give deposits for some of your utilities, or pay to have something (eg internet) installed. Be sure to research these since you have to pay them right when you have the least money, as you move in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f433e95de68c23d93cf4fae5295ecc2", "text": "You will need to look at the 27.5 year depreciation table from the IRS. It tells you how you will be able to write off the first year. It depends on which month you had the unit ready to rent. Note that that it might be a different month from when you moved, or when the first tenant moved in. Your list is pretty good. You can also claim some travel expenses or mileage related to the unit. Also keep track of any other expenses such as switching the water bill to the new renter, or postage. If you use Turbo tax, not the least expensive version, it can be a big help to get started and to remember how much to depreciate each year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a1293a666b8079d199978def4663f03", "text": "Getting the first year right for any rental property is key. It is even more complex when you rent a room, or rent via a service like AirBnB. Get professional tax advice. For you the IRS rules are covered in Tax Topic 415 Renting Residential and Vacation Property and IRS pub 527 Residential Rental Property There is a special rule if you use a dwelling unit as a personal residence and rent it for fewer than 15 days. In this case, do not report any of the rental income and do not deduct any expenses as rental expenses. If you reach that reporting threshold the IRS will now expect you to to have to report the income, and address the items such as depreciation. When you go to sell the house you will again have to address depreciation. All of this adds complexity to your tax situation. The best advice is to make sure that in a tax year you don't cross that threshold. When you have a house that is part personal residence, and part rental property some parts of the tax code become complex. You will have to divide all the expenses (mortgage, property tax, insurance) and split it between the two uses. You will also have to take that rental portion of the property and depreciation it. You will need to determine the value of the property before the split and then determine the value of the rental portion at the time of the split. From then on, you will follow the IRS regulations for depreciation of the rental portion until you either convert it back to non-rental or sell the property. When the property is sold the portion of the sales price will be associated with the rental property, and you will need to determine if the rental property is sold for a profit or a loss. You will also have to recapture the depreciation. It is possible that one portion of the property could show a loss, and the other part of the property a gain depending on house prices over the decades. You can expect that AirBnB will collect tax info and send it to the IRS As a US company, we’re required by US law to collect taxpayer information from hosts who appear to have US-sourced income. Virginia will piggyback onto the IRS rules. Local law must be researched because they may limit what type of rentals are allowed. Local law could be state, or county/city/town. Even zoning regulations could apply. Also check any documents from your Home Owners Association, they may address running a business or renting a property. You may need to adjust your insurance policy regarding having tenants. You may also want to look at insurance to protect you if a renter is injured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3f26a15ae57922ab21582901c89a67", "text": "You may have to ask each tenant to provide copies of bank statements or copied of deposited checks indicating what was paid, to whom and when. Using a spreadsheet is a good idea. It doesn't have to be complicated. If everyone co-operates then this exercise might not be too much of a hassle. But if anyone is combative or unwilling to produce these records, I would recommend reminding them that their other choice is to take each other to court where these records would be required anyway - or face eviction if the landlord doesn't get paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e78a7689dc55077eb13c694a60c5654", "text": "\"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30", "text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "45390f1ecd215cbde66ecaa8e7578bd6", "text": "\"Gifts given and received between business partners or employers/employees are treated as income, if they are beyond minimal value. If your boss gives you a gift, s/he should include it as part of your taxable wages for payroll purposes - which means that some of your wages should be withheld to cover income, social security, and Medicare taxes on it. At the end of the year, the value of the gift should be included in Box 1 (wages) of your form W-2. Assuming that's the case, you don't need to do anything special. A 1099-MISC would not be appropriate because you are an employee of your boss - so the two of you need to address the full panoply of employment taxes, not just income tax, which would be the result if the payment were reported on 1099-MISC. If the employer wants to cover the cost to you of the taxes on the gift, they'll need to \"\"gross up\"\" your pay to cover it. Let's say your employer gives you a gift worth $100, and you're in a 25% tax bracket. Your employer has to give you $125 so that you end up with a gain of $100. But the extra $25 is taxable, too, so your employer will need to add on an extra $6.25 to cover the 25% tax on the $25. But, wait, now we've gotta pay 25% tax on the $6.25, so they add an extra $1.56 to cover that tax. And now they've gotta pay an extra $.39 . . . The formula to calculate the gross-up amount is: where [TAX RATE] is the tax rate expressed as a percentage. So, to get the grossed-up amount for a $100 gift in a 25% bracket, we'd calculate 1/(1-.25), or 1/.75, or 1.333, multiply that by the target gift amount of $100, and end up with $133.33. The equation is a little uglier if you have to pay state income taxes that are deductible on the federal return but it's a similar principle. The entire $133.33 would then be reported as income, but the net effect on the employee is that they're $100 richer after taxes. The \"\"gross-up\"\" idea can be quite complicated if you dig into the details - there are some circumstances where an additional few dollars of income can have an unexpected impact on a tax return, in a fashion not obvious from looking at the tax table. If the employer doesn't include the gift in Box 1 on the W-2 but you want to pay taxes on it anyway, include the amount in Line 7 on the 1040 as if it had been on a W-2, and fill out form 8919 to calculate the FICA taxes that should have been withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05a2f8e0a28b65ca24ec68ecb84e114d", "text": "The way I have seen this done in the past is the business will withhold taxes on the amount of the gift. Very much like receiving a bonus. There are probably other ways to do it where taxes are avoided like you boss could buy the gift for you personally. Not sure about all the legal ways to avoid taxes on this.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "33815eb947ceaf1d6ce9d49424d4d5eb", "text": "As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39f3a8221f16c84c72aefff9e8144049", "text": "To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f5ea3293efbf96f1c81666d56f4562a", "text": "\"I transfer all their funds to my bank account Are they paying tax on that transfer? Gifts under $14,000 are excluded from taxation in the US, but they're going going to have a hard time arguing that it is a gift (since they expect it back). The taxes are almost certainly going to exceed the amount you can make from your investments in the short term, and if they aren't paid then your \"\"clients\"\" are going to be in hot water with the IRS. You need to have something set up that establishes you as merely managing the funds, and not receiving them personally as a transfer. The other answers have good suggestions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f593b5521152a87c5459a25f4a9088", "text": "\"In the US you are not required to have a corporation to use business expenses to offset your income. The technical term you need is \"\"deducting business expenses\"\", and in matters of taxes it's usually best to go straight to the horse's mouth: the IRS's explanations Deducting Business Expenses Business expenses are the cost of carrying on a trade or business. These expenses are usually deductible if the business operates to make a profit. What Can I Deduct? Cost of Goods Sold, Capital Expenses, Personal versus Business Expenses, Business Use of Your Home, Business Use of Your Car, Other Types of Business Expenses None of this requires any special incorporation or tax arrangements, and are a normal part of operating a business. However, there is a bit of a problem with your scenario. You said you \"\"invested\"\" into a business, but you mentioned buying specific things for the business which is not generally how one accounts for investment. If you are not an owner/operator of the business, then the scenario is not so straight-forward, as you can't simply claim someone else's business expenses as your own because you invested in it. Investments are taxed differently than expenses, and based upon your word choices I'm concerned that you could be getting yourself into a bit of a pickle. I would strongly advise you to speak with a professional, such as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), to go over your current arrangement and advise you on how you should be structuring your ongoing investment into this shared business. If you are investing you should be receiving equity to reflect your ownership (or stock in the company, etc), and investments of this sort generally cannot be deducted as an expense on your taxes - it's just an investment, the same as buying stock or CDs. If you are just buying things for someone else's benefit, it's possible that this could be looked upon as a personal gift, and you may be in a precarious legal position as well (where the money is, indeed, just a gift). And gifts of this sort aren't deductible, either. Depending on how this is all structured, it's possible that you should both consider a different form of legal organization, such as a formal corporation or at least an official business partnership. A CPA and an appropriate business attorney should be able to advise you for a nominal (few hundred dollars, at most) fee. If a new legal structure is advisable, you can potentially do the work yourself for a few hundred dollars, or pay to have it done (especially if the situation is more complex) for a few hundred to a few thousand. That's a lot less than you'd be on the hook for if this business is being accounted for improperly, or if either of your tax returns are being reported improperly!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "388064e6784725aed42532bb9245f0f4", "text": "\"Yes, it's taxable. If anyone suggests it's a gift, they are mistaken. There's a line on the 1040 for \"\"other\"\" and as long as you claim it, you're fine with the IRS. It's 2012 income as you already got it. Edit - mhoran makes two good points I'm not really able to address. (a) does a late bonus such as this effect one's penalty? (b) since it skipped payroll, will there be an issue by not having FICA withheld?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52fd8c46f1c0418a056dc8204ca347e9", "text": "It is generally best to avoid such situations. Any credits to your accounts need to be explained to tax authorities whenever they enquire. This cannot be treated as income as you did not work in exchange for the amount. It can be treated by tax authorities as GIFT. Gift upto certain amount is tax free. Beyond the amount its taxable. Gifts from close relatives has not amount limit and is tax free. Whenever the scrutiny happens, if you can convince the tax authorities that the action was more for convenience, it maybe fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd08dea7dad0b41a6ed09bda545c60a", "text": "No, any gifts you receive are not taxable to you. In fact, losing money in a scam (as this sure sounds like to me) can even be tax-deductible if you lose enough! I wouldn't recommend accepting anything. Usually people with millions are dollars are capable of setting up their own bank accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046c3a367b30527c5d320c397e8de7c7", "text": "If you are in the US and a regular employee, this will have to show up on your year-end W2 form as income. If it doesn't, there is some funky accounting business going and you should probably consult a professional for advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12145f28caf8629f91f0f822a8de3b2c", "text": "Don't overthink it. As an employee, whether of your own corporation or of someone else, you get a salary and there are deductions taken out. As the owner of a business you get (hopefully) business profits as well. And, in general, you often have other sources of income from investments, etc. Your estimated tax payments are based on the difference between what was withheld from your salary and what you will owe, based on salary, business income, and other sources. So, in essence, you just add up all the income you expect, estimate what the tax bill will be, and subtract what's been withheld. That's your estimated tax payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16975eb82ac74d9be6a9f09e50a0f753", "text": "Yes, if you gift him with a large amount you may be liable for gift tax. I believe the current limit is still $17k per person per person per year, so between you and your spouse you could give him up to $34k per year without triggering gift tax. If you want to give a larger sum, the standard workaround is an intra-family loan. Websearch for that phrase to learn more about it, but basically you loan the money and then gift the payments on the loan. This gives him the money up front, spreading the gift over subsequent years --but it requires that you declare the interest that he is supposedly paying you as income. There is a lower limit on the interest rate for these loans, but it's a fraction of a percent so this generally isn't a significant cost. (If you are able to structure the loan as a mortgage, he may be able to deduct the interest from his taxes. That usually requires a few hundred dollars if paperwork to set up.) I've done it. It works. And one of the advantages is that it puts the exact terms of the lian on paper where everyone can agree to them, which could be useful should there be arguments later on. When doing business with friends and relatives, keeping it on a clear business contract basis is the best way to avoid destroying the friendship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26ce60fef4f08824a11abf3f8009ba3b", "text": "The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a99219ec5f173dad91f95b2103fdc1f1", "text": "Get the worker put it in writing, and deduct it in December under constructive receipt rules. The fact that you're getting the actual cash in January isn't significant as long as you've secured the payment. Verify this with a tax adviser, but that's what I would do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56596fac5107f6f0af730a04194202f2", "text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"", "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": "3db51ddabf9b2150a0a0e9952e75348c", "text": "Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6f74e06785dd589d7d2e3505795b36bf", "text": "\"It's definitely annoying, but it's not necessarily false advertising. There is no rule or law that says they have to fix a pricing error at all, let alone within a certain period of time. Unfortunately they have no obligation to do business with you unless they take (and keep) your money. If they canceled the order and returned your money you have no binding agreement with them. On top of that, in the US... 'misleading advertising' usually refers to \"\"Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities\"\" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)). The main criteria that they evaluate before taking legal action is whether or not someone has suffered harm or loss due to the reliance on the bad information. But you're in Europe. The EU ideas behind misleading advertising tend to focus a lot more on comparing one product to someone else's and making subjective claims or false promises. Pricing does come up, but still, you need to have an ability to prove that you suffered harm or a loss from the business' actions. Even if you were able to prove that, to force the business to change its price catalog, you would need to go through legal proceedings, demonstrate the harm that you've sustained, and then have a judge decide in your favor and order the supplier to comply. My guess is that it's just not worth it for you, but you haven't specified if this is just an annoying shoe-shopping experience or if you are regularly experiencing bait-and-switch tactics from a supplier that is a crucial part of a business operation. If it's the former, just like a physical shop reserves the right to kick you out if you're not behaving, (but usually doesn't because they'd like to keep you as a customer), an online shop can update its prices whenever they like. They can change their prices too, and cancel orders. If it's the latter, then start putting together some documentation on how many times this has happened and how it has damaged your business. But before you get on the warpath I would recommend you look for another place to buy whatever you have in mind, or else try a pound of sugar in your approach to this supplier... My own business experience has shown that can go a lot way in figuring out a mutually beneficial resolution. If you want to see a bit more... Here is the EU Justice Commission's website on false advertising, Here is a PDF leaflet from the UK Office of Fair Trading that spells out what is explicitly not allowed from a business by way of advertising & business practices.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ed704cf268161edfe870f77e2aa24052", "text": "&gt;I don’t really like when apps show me ads pasted all over their interface, so this option was instantly crossed out. I did a double-take when the author said the above. It's an article about using empirical evidence to set price and he discards an option based on personal preference.", "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": "817577b7bcd07bbd91bb72275efb94be", "text": "Dispute the charge. Receiving the wrong product is grounds for dispute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f8ef68a02f2c845e9305c18857f6f0", "text": "There are a few scenarios I see possible: 1. Risk parameters in the algo were set very conservatively. Putting quotes out and canceling them is very common. 2. It was looking to exploit situations where someone rips through the book with a market order. 3. It was reacting too slowly to signals, and chasing opportunities that had already passed. Other comments: What do you believe front running is? Your version differs from the textbook definition. Quote taxes are more effective than minimum order durations. I wrote about how that works in a previous post in this thread.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7c83c86016cc0041271214675e9c13", "text": "We actually have [a thread](http://www.reddit.com/r/GroceryStores/comments/10sldg/im_so_tired_of_this_grocery_shrinkray_bullshit/) about that going on right now in r/grocerystores. It is a fine line to walk. No one wants to visibly raise prices. But they are still showing price per pound/ounce on the tag (right? Every store I have been in shows that). The consumer is partly to blame for allowing those shenanigans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26064c80f92e50da1d5c5af2ca98d9d9", "text": "When I ran a gas station, our price was largely set by our neighbors-- the other gas stations in the area. We couldn't go below the current cost of replacement gas, but other than that we wanted to be at .05 over the average. (We got away with charging more because we were the last station on a major road.) Everybody else did the same thing. Also, we only set prices once a day, early in the morning before the commuter rush. Changing prices while somebody is pumping gas Was Not Done, for fairly obvious reasons. So, you'd get these ripples of price-changing, as one station changed its price, and then all its neighbors would react to that the next day, and then THEIR neighbors would change the day after that, and so on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f48a4f2f79c6876582055e16e3166128", "text": "\"Ah to be clear, \"\"bad customer\"\" here means someone that ends up costing the company more money than they are worth to you. The article explictly says that a lot of the problems that Bob had were nothing to do with their product.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c30bf41ef74f9c650df65cedcfa60092", "text": "As I understand it, the correct price is any point between the minimum the seller is willing to accept and the maximum the buyer is willing to pay. These values are influenced by a number of factors, including market conditions, cost of production and immediate need. There's also a sense of fairness and expectation that influences these numbers. People don't want to pay a much higher price or accept a much lower price than they think the other party *should* agree to. For example, in the event of a sudden actual or anticipated shortage in some commodity consumer good, say... gasoline, it would make sense for sellers to raise the price significantly. In the short term, consumers of gasoline are very price-insensitive and most will pay more than double the usual price to obtain it. This behavior is commonly seen as unfair on the part of the seller - to the point that certain variations of it are illegal in some jurisdictions. Economists would describe it as rational. Oddly, people don't seem to be as upset about buyers offering low prices in the event of a sudden increase in highly motivated sellers. When people do tend to get upset is if the buyers have a profit motive; they know the price decrease is temporary and are willing to buy and hold the asset to make a profit later. Even so, it seems to me that it's much rarer for such behavior to be illegal. The underlying objection, as far as I can tell is to what is perceived as greed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9deab02a93f8610d92c4ad9185f964b0", "text": "You are confusing manufacturing cost and listed price. They are being sold for less than listed price. There is no way they are being sold for 1/3rd of manufacturing cost. They could be sold for less than manufacturing cost but future support will be factored into that sale so they would still be a loss leader.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "137a3e87be092013b7b45a65eb330fc6", "text": "The sales manager and/or finance manager applied a rebate that did not apply. It's their fault. They have internal accounts to handle these situations as they do come up from time to time. The deal is done. They have no legal ground.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6232478af3a94f2588dfd3e1e8f816da", "text": "This has happened to me several times while trying to travel. See a flight listed for one price, go through the process and it ends up being 50-100 more. Not sure which airlines just in general. I dont see how 2 seperate sites can have the same price problem. and what changes in the 5-10 minutes it takes someone to enter their info? do gas and costs go up that much in 10 minutes? Just like extra ticket fees and everything....i just wish companies would start putting the FULL price up front. extra fees and all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02bb688428d59b63300e88a3256cc5c7", "text": "Just the opposite, if you can, offer all prices! Make a premium product, and regular one, a lite version, and so on. Capture all price points. The premium version's price gives you anchoring so your less expensive product will appear cheap even if it isn't. This also gives users an upgrade path so the way to full price is baby steps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a31a26bc40d98a655b0e3bc57f2a9c89", "text": "\"However, it also anti-correlates: advertising these features of their product lets them charge more, and the higher price means they can afford better inputs. And customers who are willing to spend extra money on \"\"natural\"\" are also more willing to spend extra money on taste.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db3816bf403891ee9fd6cf579b261951", "text": "What you found is that when your were on website X on day y when you clicked on the link they told you to buy 7 stocks and you performed an experiment, but the values went down. Somebody else on website A on day B saw a lightly different list, they may have been flat. But if you were on website W on day D that list hit the jackpot. Which of the three decided that the people running the ad knew what they were talking about? They could have tailored the list based on the nature of the website. Sports and recreation ones on ESPN, high tech on a computer focus site. They could have varied the size of the lit, they could have varied the way they described their analysis. They could have even varied the name of the expert to make it sound familiar or authoritative. What you found was a marketing plan. It may have been a scam, or it may have been just a way to try and convince you they know what they were doing. If you clicked on the wrong list, they probably lost you as a potential customer, unless you can convince yourself that they were close, and deserve a second look....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a1c389d5216cd5cdf955b049a2fac6", "text": "A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8a189b80c56ab2a8eb314620583105a8", "text": "\"The Business Dictionary has three definitions of \"\"turnover\"\". When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fb52419d4872fd7d43717254d06fd548", "text": "\"On 3# - My company is constantly complaining about saving money, cutting costs. Then we have these events, and banners, and trinkets and bullshit about our new \"\"mission statement\"\" - everyone here just sees them pissing away money (millions) while bitching about money. That's a fucking drag on company morale. Then again, #8 - my job is being phased out, so it's not like I really like this place anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8be21d05ed1779908307183b4400187e", "text": "That was a quote from the article itself... There's a good link involved in that excerpt... Read it... Job lock is a real thing... That's the only reason people remain at the large corporations that treat them just like a number and don't give a crap about them... People work for large companies with fucked up schedules, commutes and often health detrimental duties... Yet they don't want to adventure to the unknown where there's a chance they will not get the same benefit package... As anecdote, I live in Rural Washington state, a lot of Union people travel to Seattle for work... This is a very long, and stressful commute, I-5, 16, and 405 are not fun... Some of them will spend upwards of five or six hours a day just on the road... when you ask them why... It's because of the pay and the benefit package... when you factor in the extra hours of driving, the pay really is not that huge of a difference, and the toll on your body that that kind of commute takes is horrific... But they wouldn't dare look at small companies Closer by that may not be able to offer them the pension, and health insurance plan that is mandated when working for Amazon, or building for JP Morgan... So they just give in, become a number, and on paper, and empirically, it is a net gain... But the intangible effects on their psyche, happiness, are quite clear....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a38bafeb735f43826f9b6342241c2be", "text": "So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs. If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory. Got it. Thanks. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd6b1bfb16e4b4349123fb95103e97c", "text": "\"It means price movements in the past do not affect price movements in the future. Think of the situation of a coin, if you flip it once, and then you flip it a second time, the results are independent of each other. If the first time, you flipped a HEAD, it does not mean that the coin will remember it, and produce a TAIL the second time. This is the meaning of \"\"memoryless\"\". FYI, stock markets are clearly not memoryless. It is just an assumption for academic purposes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6bd677c1e3ea129e086763705a7bdad", "text": "\"The \"\"c.\"\" is probably circa, or \"\"about.\"\" Regulatory settlements is in blue because it's negative; the amount is in parentheses, which indicates a loss. WB and CB might be wholesale banking and commercial banking? BAU probably means \"\"business as usual\"\" or things that don't directly apply to the project. Incremental investment is the additional cash a company puts towards its long-term capital assets. FX is probably foreign exchange.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84db8928e71914d29c1ede1652c8857d", "text": "That looks like a Bloomberg terminal. And like @Jer said, it would appear to be the symbol for the S&P 500 E-mini index future. Although it doesn't look right all on its own, as it should have a modifier indicating the month (or quarter) of expiry. However, since it appears on a Bloomberg terminal in the image, I checked a source for Bloomberg Symbol Lists and found one of two possibilities for ES1. It is most likely the S&P 500 e-mini future: CME E-Mini Futures E-Mini S&P 500 ES1 INDEX the only alternative was LIFFE 3 Month Euroswiss ES1 COMDTY I think the former is far more likely, as the latter has the COMDTY commodity tag instead of INDEX as the tag in the image. Also, it isn't the ESI which pertains to Ethibel Sustainability Indices and something with the Eurozone (also Bloomberg Indices). Here we go! Excerpt straight is from a presentation presentation on charting from a business school PDF see pp.12-13, and appears to be a straight excerpt from September 2007 Bloomberg documentation. I didn't know any other way to imbed it besides taking a screen shot then uploading to imgur. Or of course, see pp.12-13 in the referenced PDF I've attached. See", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91d757f3506cda4e6a14d708282d8c13", "text": "Rather large, incorrect assumption for someone who wants to chat about logic. I think it's a clickbait article that doesn't articulate anything other than defending Damore, *which isn't the point of the article, based on the title.* Please, if you're going to suggest the CEO of Google should resign over this manifesto in the NYT, you better have something more than some emotional digs and crying about leadership by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue of what it entails in total. That's why I don't think he should write another piece, sure as hell not on this subject. But I appreciate your armchair analysis bub.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2647687762360c49bb6114991554d0de", "text": "I think you are having trouble understanding what 'liquid' means. Liquidity refers to how easily an asset can be converted to cash. More liquid = more easily converted to cash, less liquid, less so. Any kind of exit load is going to make an asset less liquid due to the penalties associated with making the sale. So, the whole point of liquid funds is to give people the option of selling quickly if they need to. Since an exit load is meant to discourage this behavior, liquid funds tend not to have one. The point isn't what the financial institution 'gets', it's about offering a service to clients with a particular investment need.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "059208f33a4bafb29026f32af0cbcc61", "text": "\"I would look at the wording of the question. \"\"Expect\"\" does not necessarily mean that they plan to work until they die, or that they want to work until they die. \"\"Expect\"\" here likely means that they think they will have to work until they die - in particular, think that they will not be able to save up enough to retire. Thinking that you will have to work until you die doesn't mean you shouldn't save money - that's just giving up if you don't, right? Instead you save up money and hopefully you're one of the luckier ones.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d85158f0a82f5d0aa198c6541dd827e0", "text": "Thank you very much. &gt;Corporations are really a means of removing risk beyond initial investment This made my light bulb just go off. Thank you! --- I'm going to have to digest the rest of the material slowly. It makes sense, but I want to get it 100%. Thanks a lot!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56721438fa6acaf9a0b838542836851b", "text": "This is where someone hand waves: innovation, competitive spirit, technology, hard work, and values -- code words for -- cut everything to the bone, replace with automation as much as possible, and/or acquire work-slaves, rinse-repeat until an exit strategy is found, bail out at optimal point and leave someone else to clean up the mess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "630322d6c195ac675508693c89b9b106", "text": "\"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power. For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company. Also, stock splits are not ordinarily \"\"triggered\"\". Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally. I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a \"\"poison pill\"\". In these arrangements, the \"\"pill\"\" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold. What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it. Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a1e9da8ed7b56d4014e73204605cf7e", "text": "Ideally, you would be correct. There is an inverse correlation between wages and turnover rate... to a point. We live in an economy where, unfortunately, there is a ready supply of labor to take the place of those who quit or otherwise leave the company. This brings the value of your current employees down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03765888936dcdd3e8e5bb21462ea911", "text": "Owning a home is cheaper than paying rent. You ever think the turnover is so high because it's a shitty work environment for what their paid? How about you go sit at the Walmart employee smoke area. All they do is bitch for their 30 minute break about how their job is miserable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2687a838a4c2f0effb07b4ec3585b60", "text": "Im an actor preparing for a role. I play a trader in the UK during the late 80s. I have a very basic understanding of the stock market and am unsure what some of the dialogue is referring to. For example: “bid 28 at the figure” “sell at 3” “5 march at 28” “9 for 5” “bid 4 at 6” “closing out now at 4”. What do these numbers mean exactly. It doesn’t help that im Australian and this is a UK production, or that im an idiot", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "56e501ad9e345426d2297fbcb1c91911", "text": "The classic Nigerian scam involves sending fraudulent cashier's checks to unwitting recipients who then deposit them in their account. The bank reverses these deposits once they discover the check is not valid. At least in the US and in the parts of the EU I'm familiar with (the Netherlands), the method of the Nigerian scam is consistent and banks will reverse the deposit after some holding period. Given this, it's unlikely that most banks will convert an arbitrary cashier's check to cash without any means to recover the amount should the check be fraudulent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7317fb4f46b375b628a969a195c49b5f", "text": "\"At least in the US, a Cashier's Check is just like a regular personal check - only it's guaranteed by the bank itself, so the person accepting it can be pretty certain the check won't be returned for insufficient funds...if the check is genuine! Most banks therefore have a policy for cashier's checks that is very similar to their policies on regular checks and money orders: if you are a member with an account in good standing, they'll make all or part of the money available to you according to their fund availability policy, which is usually anywhere from \"\"immediately\"\" to 7-10 days. With amounts over $5,000, banks will tend to put a hold on the funds to ensure it clears and they get their money. If you are not a member then many banks will refuse to cash the check at all, unless the cashier's check is drawn on on that brand of bank. So if the cashier's check is issued by, say, Chase Bank, Chase banks will usually be willing to cash out the entire check to you immediately (with properly provided ID). Because the bank is guaranteed by them they are able to check their system and ensure the check is real and can clear the check instantly. This policy isn't just up to individual banks entirely, as it is defined by United States federal banking policies and federal regulations on availability of funds. If you really must cash the check without a holding period and won't/can't have a bank account of your own to perform this, then you will generally need to go into a branch of the bank that is guaranteeing the check to be able to cash it out fully right away. Note that since the check might be issued by a bank with no branch near you, you should have a back-up plan. Generally banks will allow you to setup a special/limited savings-only account to deposit your check, even if you don't have a checking account, so if no other option works you might try that as well. The funds availability policies are the same, but at least you'll be able to cash it generally in 10 days time (and then close the account and withdraw your money).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37794866268a27f723559f431c8a31d9", "text": "Normally if the amount of a cashiers check is over $5,000, a bank (like Wells Fargo) may put a 10 business day hold on it to make sure the transaction is sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e401011b92d6c89b508ce9f8b78789e", "text": "Cashiers check is as good as cash. I use them all the time as banks don't carry over 2-3k anymore. I can bring the cashiers check anywhere and thus cash it for u without an account. It's basically a piece of paper that says these funds are set aside from the issuers account just for and only for the check. That's why it's accepted anywhere. It's a gurantee from one bank to another that the funds are there waiting to be transferred. The whole point of the check is so the funds are available immediately. The bank will call the issuing bank verify the Check is real and than cash it immediately. You don't pay a fee to buy the cashiers check just to wait for it to clear like a normal free check. Its immediate and just as good as cash. I use them weekly/monthly for amounts from 5k up to over 100k.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "253360e3cafdc6b07b20398e7ba38969", "text": "\"If you forgot to put the name on the \"\"pay to the order of\"\" line then anybody who gets their hands on the check can add their name to the check and deposit it at their bank into their account. If it goes to the correct person they will have an easy time making sure that the check is made out correctly. They don't have to worry about that picky teller who doesn't know what to do with a check made out to Billy Smith and a drivers license for Xavier William Smith. On the other hand... a criminal will also be able to make sure it is processed exactly the way they want it. If I made it out to a small business or a person I would let them know. You might not have a choice but to wait and see what happens if it was sent to a large business, the payment processing center could be a long way from where you will be calling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f25fafb34d78ed0c7ffedc3a21440848", "text": "Ask your bank or credit union. Mine will let me issue recurring payments to anyone, electronically if they can, if not a check gets mailed and (I presume) I get billed for the postage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25e2790f0097e1553fcb935da1c4396a", "text": "\"This answer is based on my understanding of the US banking system. We have check cashing businesses here too, which are just like what you describe, except for the spelling :-) Let's consider what \"\"cash it for free at the bank\"\" really means, and why it might not be an option for everyone. One key issue is \"\"which bank?\"\" As an example, suppose that I have an account at ABC Bank. I take out my checkbook for that account and write you a check for $500. (Terminology: In this case, I am the drawer or maker of the check, ABC Bank is the drawee bank, and you, user54609, are the payee. Disclaimer: \"\"You\"\" here is meant as a generic pronoun and I do not mean to insinuate that anything here actually applies to you personally.) There are two common things you might do with the check: If you have an account at some bank, say XYZ Bank, you might take the check to XYZ Bank and deposit it in your account. (You might be able to do this through an ATM, mobile app, or by mail, instead of in person.) XYZ Bank does not have a way to verify with certainty that the check is valid (e.g. they don't know what my signature looks like, nor whether I actually have $500 in my account at ABC), so they send it to ABC Bank, which verifies the check and transfers $500 to XYZ. (This is usually done through a central clearinghouse, such as the Federal Reserve in the US, and in some cases an image of the check may be sent electronically, instead of the physical check.) This process takes some time, so XYZ may not make the $500 available to you right away - there may be a hold period before you can withdraw that $500 from your account. You could take the check to ABC Bank, in person. They will verify on the spot that the check is valid and that you are in fact user54609. If everything looks good, they will hand you $500 in cash (perhaps subtracting a fee of a few dollars). Now we can see some possible problems with each of these approaches. For 1: Maybe you don't have a bank account at all. There are many possible reasons: You don't have enough money to meet the minimum balance that a bank account would require. You used to have an account, but you overdrew or otherwise misused an account, so the bank closed it. They then entered you in a registry such as ChexSystems which ensures that other banks know about this, and so no other bank will open a new account for you. You immigrated to the country illegally and cannot get the documents (driver's license, social security number, etc) that a bank normally requires to open an account. You simply don't like the idea of keeping your money in a bank. Maybe you do have an account at XYZ Bank, but it's in another town. You need the cash today, so you can't use mail or a mobile app, and third-party ATMs usually don't accept deposits. Maybe you need to spend the money today, and XYZ Bank would place a hold. For 2: ABC Bank may not have a branch you can conveniently visit. Maybe the nearest one is a long way away, in another city or across the country. Or maybe ABC is an online bank with no physical branches at all. Maybe it's in the same city, but you don't have transportation to get you there. Or maybe it's simply less convenient than the check-cashing business on the corner. Maybe it is after usual banking hours, or a weekend, and ABC Bank is closed, but you need cash now. In any of these situations, \"\"cash it at the bank\"\" might not be a viable option, and so you might reasonably turn to a check cashing business instead. As you say, you will pay a much higher fee there, but maybe it is worth it to you, or you just don't have any choice. Another possibility, of course, is that you are poorly educated about the banking system, and you don't really understand that 1 and 2 are options, or how to go about them. But there's this storefront on the corner that says \"\"Check Cashing\"\", so this seems like a low-stress, uncomplicated way to exchange this piece of paper for money. As such, there certainly are people who legitimately might want to cash a valid check at a check-cashing business. Check cashing business do of course take some risk of fraud, since they can't necessarily verify the check. There are sometimes steps they can take to minimize this risk. Sometimes they can call ABC Bank and check that I have sufficient money in my account. Maybe they'll only accept certain kinds of checks, such as payroll checks from well-known companies for which you can produce a matching pay stub. And they can demand identification from you (perhaps allowing more flexible options than a bank), which helps ensure that you are the payee, and would make you easier to track down if you did commit fraud. But they will probably lose some money this way, so they will have to make their fees high enough to cover those losses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "591374af295eea181078c11fff644f7f", "text": "How often do you need to actually go to a bank? atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever. you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them. dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "31c281eb2eb9a00f332080b149465ff9", "text": "Years ago, I had a tenant who bounced a check now and then. I started going to the bank where his account was. With my ID they were agreeable to cashing the check against his account. The teller first checked his balance and only cashed when there were enough funds. One time he was $10 short. I wrote a deposit slip and added the $10 it took to clear the check. As they say, your mileage may vary, I hear some banks won't even break a large bill for a non customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f11642ee9a141532e6f6837656985f1b", "text": "\"How does this get any business? You'd be surprised on how much profit these type of businesses can bring in and the number of people who cash their checks this way. They make profit off people who want their checks cashed ASAP. Usually cheques written to \"\"cash\"\" or something can just be cashed for free at the bank right? Yes, most banks cash your check for free. Some may not cash it right away and may require a few days to process. Some charge a small fee if the check is not from the same bank. Some personal checks may not even be processed the same day as well. Wouldn't the only cheques that people would cash at these places be bad cheques? Yes and no. Yes because it may be \"\"easier\"\" to try to cash a fraudulent check at these type of check cashing places. However, some places may only cash business checks and require your ID in which they write down the information in order to possibly track you down in the future. Also some places only cash a check to a certain amount. And wouldn't this mean that the business will lose a lot of money since it pays out cash but then has the cheque bounce? Of course the business loses money if the check bounces or is fake. That is why they try to minimize their losses with certain requirements that needs to met before the check can be cashed. Who uses these services exactly? Just about anyone who needs their check cashed ASAP or like ChrisW stated in his answer is trying to keep their money on the low. There is a demand for this service even though it may seem shady to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ea22f3848d931782d35dccdbe5fdeed", "text": "The only certain way is to have the issuer confirm it. You'd think there would be a better way, but no there isn't. I suggest you read this story about what can happen even if you are the innocent victim trying to cash a fraudulent Cashier's Check. The consequences included some jail time and huge attorney fees for this unlucky person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfd3eb0b7e5e8a780a7c355f643759a2", "text": "\"Legally, a check just needs to have a certain list of things (be an instruction to one's bank to pay a specific amount of money to bearer or to a specific entity, have a date, have a signature, etc.) There are anecdotes around of a guy depositing a junk mail check and it accidentally qualifying as a real check (which he turned into a live show), or of writing a check on a door, cow, or \"\"the shirt off your back\"\". What kind of checks your bank will process is technically up to them. Generally, if you get your blank checks printed up by any reputable firm, they'll have similar information in similar places, as well as the MICR line (the account and routing number in magnetic ink on the bottom) to allow for bank to process the checks with automated equipment. As long as it's a standard size, has the MICR line, and has the information that a check needs, your bank is likely to be fine with it. So, there are some standards, but details like where exactly the name of the bank is, or what font is used, or the like, are up to whoever is printing the check. For details on what standards your bank requires in order to process your checks, you'd have to check with your bank directly. Though, it wouldn't surprise me if they just directed you to their preferred check printer provider, as they know that they accept their check format fine. Though as I said, any reputable check printer makes sure that they meet the standards to get processed by banks without trouble. Unless you're a business that's going to be writing a lot of checks and pay a lot of fees for the privilege, a bank is not likely to want to make exceptions for you for your own custom-printed octagonal checks written in ancient Vulcan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17e57e485e12f83d79d5bfe9251e82e5", "text": "Some Walmart stores have a surcharge-free ATM in their Money Center. If that doesn't work, look for the logo of the interbank network on the back of your card that your bank uses (e.g. Star, Cirrus, Allpoint, MoneyPass) and Google them. If you're lucky, they'll have a surcharge-free ATM locator (e.g. https://www.star.com/locator/).", "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": "830598775e637c5f87e5ecf2bbbf7e59", "text": "I don't know that. I know mine has a great mobile app where I can deposit a check online. And all the smaller banks I've seen dont build their own sites or apps, they white label generic ones from common vendors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffa2250acc63d88f31a6961a58f380b9", "text": "I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f824ec9564ba86142f8aecb01947433a", "text": "\"No, you cannot do that. You can't just debit someone because \"\"he said so\"\". You'll need a document in writing, that would show the routing number, account number, the amount to withdraw and who is allowed to withdraw it. This document must be signed by the account owner and dated. Usually, these documents are called \"\"checks\"\". But legally speaking, in most countries you can write this on any piece of paper and it would be valid. But better use a standard check. Once you have a check - you can cash/deposit it in any bank, that part is true.\"", "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": "85e79ba38e7a9b761ad1d0665011ddf6", "text": "It has properties of both. Tax authorities will eventually give their opinion on this. Through its properties of finite quantity, fungibility, and resistance to forgery/duplication, it acts as a commodity. It can be sent directly between any two parties anywhere on Earth, without regard for the quantity transacted or physical distance, to act as a currency. By the way, establishing trust in a trust-free environment through cryptographic proof-of-work is a remarkable invention. Sending economic value, cheaply and securely, around the world in minutes, not days/weeks, is a remarkable invention. This is where the value comes from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79add24a8545fda941b3158fea0c6d65", "text": "\"Its neither. Its a scam. there's no value underlying it, and it has proven to be the most speculative and untrustworthy investment there is. The scam works like a pyramid scam, so the more people come later on the more people who came in earlier on gain, so that is why you see so much hype around it encouraged and fueled by those early adopters who'll cash out at your expense. Imagine people who jumped on the bandwagon when each coin was worth a mere fraction of a dollar - they want you to \"\"invest\"\" at the current price of hundreds of dollars per unit so that they could cash out. You'd be better off with tulips, really. (And don't be discouraged by the downvotes on this answer, of course those scamers will try to shut me down. That will just prove the point.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e6d821a8993439b77890a01220e2930", "text": "I would classify Bitcoin as a hybrid. Currency : It is accepted by e-businesses as a form of payment Commodity : Chart illustrating the volatility and speculative nature of Bitcoin", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4f64ef46bb0260c8b78aaf58038bcb06", "text": "Mining is income at the value at time of earning, I would use an index like XBX to determine price. Asset appreciation is capital gains. These aspects of crypto-assets are not a gray area in the US financial sector, and have been addressed for almost half a decade now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b6e0840c6ca3acfeab6d19c999c5c21", "text": "\"A perfectly-implemented fiat currency, printed and ordained by a perfectly omniscient, perfectly competent, and perfectly benevolent central bank (let's call it God money\"\"), is the ideal. \"\" Guess I had to come out of the woodwork here. Sounds like you just described bitcoin. :) Plus it is nice because it is much cheaper and easier to digitally transfer than heavy metal. Since bitcoin has a very finite supply, and probably upsets Keynesian economics, I could see an alt-coin that would have an automatic calculation built in to create more money based on inflation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d1adf0e83406848f9a4b39a7f698c4", "text": "&gt;$1,000 worth of electricity to generate The cost of Bitcoin always tracks the price of Bitcoin. There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin available to be mined every day. The cost to mine bitcoin rises because of competition (they increase the difficulty of the problems to maintain a fixed supply of Bitcoin). The electricity cost to mine Bitcoin is directly related to the amount of miners, which is directly related to the current cost of Bitcoin. More people want to mine when the price is high. If you really think about it, what you are really saying is that the intrinsic value of bitcoin is the value of Bitcoin. Its a completely circular mirage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95849db2b91d8a1f2973c952c3b7651a", "text": "Part of the value of bitcoin is indeed in speculation about its future. Will it be a store of value, like gold is? Will it be *the* medium of exchange for online and offline transactions? Will it be a representation and insurance for services (to be) rendered? It currently most resembles the first, but don't forget that bitcoin is still in its infancy. There's a lot of room for it to grow, and the technology behind it *can* grow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9d15f23da11e1c1e89effd602bfcec", "text": "Can someone please explain how this is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Bitcoin has a $100B market cap. This is a financial instrument with very little real value to either consumers or businesses. However, Bitcoin has experienced a meteoric rise in value as more and more people buy in. Is the bottom not going to fall out here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9320140934a24403d41e217d806ab81a", "text": "I know I'm late to the party, but a couple of rebuttals as a recent bitcoin advocate. I may be out of place in this subreddit as I come from a primarily technological background, not a financial one. &gt; Bittcoin is not a currency, it's a store of value, because it is not widely accepted as tender by most people. Bitcoin is not a currency *yet*, but because it does not have widespread adoption *yet*. Like other revolutionary technologies, there is an [inflection point](https://medium.com/@mcasey0827/speculative-bitcoin-adoption-price-theory-2eed48ecf7da) where adoption goes from hardly anyone to almost everyone very quickly. [Example chart](https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*E4eb7wxHinGNdYQq.) &gt;Even as a store of value, it's not very good. It's volatile and the fact that there is a limited supply of bitcoin is not a good thing. Sure, in the short run it results in speculation that drives up the price of a coin and makes it all the rage among gamblers but I don't think anyone can explain how, if used on a larger scale, wouldn't lead to deflation in the price of goods. To me, this is basic supply and demand, and it would in theory become less volatile and more stable following mass adoption. Bitcoin has virtually no inflation, and I agree that this could lead to the deflation of goods, but only insofar as that valuation is determined in bitcoin. For example, milk is still $2, but as the value of bitcoin fluctuates, I may pay .001 BTC or .0005 BTC for that milk. It's important to remember we're dealing with a digital asset in an increasingly more digitized world, a point-of-sale device like we use for credit cards could certainly tackle that conversion in the future. &gt;Also, at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government. How does Bitcoin or any other online currency solve that problem? There's no accountability, and it effectively acts as as an anti-currency, fueled by mistrust in the establishment. This is the best part of bitcoin, understanding the incentives. If you follow that supply and demand logic, then it is in the best interest of *everyone who uses bitcoin* that the bitcoin software and the system itself be reliable and secure. The software is open source so anyone can see how it works and where its flaws and weaknesses are - and it is still standing strong after 8 years. The biggest weakness so far has been in software updates and changes to the core protocol. Without any central structure (i.e. accountability) it can be slow to reach a democratic consensus is such a way that doesn't split the blockchain or fracture the network. This has led to some of the recent extreme volatility. Bitcoin (and some other cryptocurrencies) have tremendous potential to disrupt existing financial institutions. The private blockchains peddled by banks are at this point [just databases](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMEOKDVXlUo&amp;index=2&amp;list=LL7mI3EyFeE83Ac-VtxNUhxA). At some point, these institutions will realize that they can't create their own Facebook, they need to find ways to become part of the new Facebook market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f39d6047af5c4f9ebfafb0c99c198907", "text": "\"Bittcoin is not a currency, it's a store of value, because it is not widely accepted as tender by most people. Even as a store of value, it's not very good. It's volatile and the fact that there is a limited supply of bitcoin is not a good thing. Sure, in the short run it results in speculation that drives up the price of a coin and makes it all the rage among gamblers but I don't think anyone can explain how, if used on a larger scale, wouldn't lead to deflation in the price of goods. Also, at the end of the day, fiat currencies are based on trust and accountability of the government. How does Bitcoin or any other online currency solve that problem? There's no accountability, and it effectively acts as as an anti-currency, fueled by mistrust in the establishment. What do you mean, \"\"cryptocurrencies are growing hundreds of times faster than the market as a whole\"\"?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9a36dad5328565bc5ddca2e2b3bcdb6", "text": "\"The relative value of Gold (or any other commodity) as measured against any given currency (such as the USD), is not a constant function either. If you have inflationary pressure, the \"\"value\"\" of an ounce of gold (or barrel of oil, etc) may \"\"double\"\", but it's really because the underlying comparator has lost \"\"half\"\" its value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5e06ae5797a21d78982d8329f0a8175", "text": "\"A good reference to what encompasses \"\"securities\"\" are detailed in the Securities Act of 1933, which was enacted by the United States federal government. One main exception, which I would still consider securities for your purposes, would be \"\"commercial paper\"\". These are exempt from the securities act because they mature in 270 days of less, but they function much like bonds or promissory notes Therefore though, it would not encompass currencies and commodities. It really comes down to the structure of the agreement for transferring or holding the particular kind of underlying asset.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab8e2c4f62e90b429e52348b090e65d3", "text": "\"First of all, metals are commodities. So if you're phrasing that as metals and/or commodities, then that's poorly worded. If you're phrasing that as \"\"metal commodity reports\"\" then say as such. Second, and more importantly: what commodities? Power is very different than coffee. Different places specialize in different things, all banks are good in some and weak in others. There's no generic \"\"commodity\"\" market but rather a huge range of specifically different products traded in the future.You learn more than a small fraction of this universe so pick one or two specific products from the macro buckets (i.e. energy, grains, metals) and focus on those.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0020f28be04149c2e9ad46da4ab8aaa7", "text": "This isn't an article discussing the business aspects of bitcoin. It's a comment on the price movement of bitcoin. Do we regularly comment about the gyrations of commodities and currencies on this thread? I tend to find talk of those things on subs like /r/finance and /r/investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "379efa836cc7a4c7502ea05e87ecfafc", "text": "Currencies don't have intrinsic value. Just because you have to pay taxes in USD does not mean it has intrinsic value. The government could theoretically switch currency every second, not that that will ever happen. But yes the USD is supported by the US government and that's like a safety net for the value of the USD. Bitcoin doesn't have a government accepting bitcoin in taxes (except maybe liberland or something) so BTC doesn't have that safenet. But with such a liquid market and millions of buyorders bitcoin doesn't really need a safenet. There will always be demand. I prefer a scarce currency with growing demand than an inflationary currency backed by a corrupt government that loses value over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2cac70eed45ceaa9d24925004cef85f", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/strategist-tom-lee-weighs-sees-bitcoin-going-as-high-as-55000.html) reduced by 80%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; The strategist&amp;#039;s case for bitcoin is a basic supply-and-demand story, similar to the argument other proponents of bitcoin use when playing up its future as &amp;quot;Digital gold.\"\" &gt; While the lack of regulation is what has attracted many buyers, many consider bitcoin the &amp;quot;Wild West.&amp;quot; Three years ago, Mt. Gox, the largest bitcoin exchange then, filed for bankruptcy and said it lost 750,000 of its users bitcoins and 100,000 of the exchange&amp;#039;s own. &gt; Lee acknowledged bitcoin&amp;#039;s volatility in his report, noting that annualized bitcoin volatility is 75 percent, &amp;quot;Substantially higher than gold&amp;#039;s 10%. But as noted, gold&amp;#039;s volatility approached 90% from 1971 to 1980 as the U.S. abandoned the gold standard - hence, we expect this to improve over time.\"\" ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lved5/first_major_wall_street_strategist_weighs_in_on/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~161687 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bitcoin**^#1 **Lee**^#2 **currency**^#3 **digital**^#4 **gold**^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51a6ca6a32a72b6063be3ac0e7c42d47", "text": "\"Alright, so this is all out of the way. As a further note, I have a degree in computer science so I'm not oblivious to the technical aspects of bitcoin. I reject the idea that banning bitcoin is akin to banning the internet - in fact, I reject the notion that bitcoin is anywhere as revolutionary as \"\"the internet\"\" was (which itself, as a construct, is far older than most people let on). I've always acknowledged that there are many innovative technical aspects to bitcoin which are likely to find their way into our current system of money and transactions. The reality, however, goes back to my original contentions - that bitcoin is difficult (if not nearly impossible) to track, and thus serves as a black-market vehicle for those who wish to transact outside the power of the government. Whether or not you see this as \"\"good\"\" or \"\"bad\"\" doesn't matter; \"\"the government\"\" within any defined national border is the plenary power - period - and thus (for lack of a better phrase) \"\"resistance is mostly futile.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98327dbb386c1a738abe97f050ef7ca7", "text": "There are forums online (Wall Street Oasis, Poets and Quants) that cover what you need to know for a Wall Street interview. That's the most efficient way. But it's also important to research the company that you're interviewing for. Do they invest in equity or debt? Are they in a specialized industry (e.g., real estate, oil &amp; gas)? A model for a equity research firm is going to have different priorities from a LBO model for a private equity firm or a cash flow model for a bank/lending company.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "49b16b6e3edc3ebf47f9e78c863c098a", "text": "Does the corporation need the money for its ongoing business? If so, don't transfer it. If not, feel free. This decision has nothing to do with whether the corporation made money in any particular year.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "2948cd0e63af02de801485656a7996bc", "text": "\"Tax US corporate \"\"persons (citizens)\"\" under the same regime as US human persons/citizens, i.e., file/pay taxes on all income earned annually with deductions for foreign taxes paid. Problem solved for both shareholders and governments. [US Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad - Filing Requirements](https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad-filing-requirements) &gt;If you are a U.S. citizen or resident alien living or traveling outside the United States, **you generally are required to file income tax returns, estate tax returns, and gift tax returns and pay estimated tax in the same way as those residing in the United States.** Thing is, we know solving this isn't the point. It is to misdirect and talk about everything, but the actual issues, i.e., the discrepancy between tax regimes applied to persons and the massive inequality it creates in tax responsibility. Because that would lead to the simple solutions that the populace need/crave. My guess is most US human persons would LOVE to pay taxes only on what was left AFTER they covered their expenses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8fded8029447d6371ae0dc5bccd7432", "text": "Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4303dc4fdce909f8af8b9e3d983cc1f", "text": "Because the distribution date was APR 21, 2011, THAT should be the correct date for ascertainng the stock prices of the GM stock and warrants. The subsequent distributions after April should also be allocated in accordance with their distribution dates, with tax basis being reduced from the original APR 21st date's allocations, and reallocated to those subsequent distributions, taking into account any interim sales you might have made.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57390fc75c7c0b3a47269f7ea8e90c07", "text": "\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71d5097054e25bcf177dfa43b19c737c", "text": "Ok, so here's the strategy I decided to go with in the meantime: Allocate E1 to A_corp and E3 to A_ira. Here are my considerations which I assume at this stage to be right:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af033af3f8b981e4e7147ebc864cc28", "text": "\"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The \"\"reasonable salary\"\" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "789c6ee5519a98310ca80232d15d7573", "text": "\"S-Corp is a corporation. I.e.: you add a \"\"Inc.\"\" or \"\"Corp.\"\" to the name or something of that kind. \"\"S\"\" denotes a specific tax treatment which may change during the lifetime of the corporation. It doesn't refer to a legal status.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da9ecf6147e0082b20047381cdb41141", "text": "\"There are no dividends from S-Corp. There are distributions. Big difference. S-Corps fill form 1120S and schedule K-1 per shareholder. In the schedule all the income of your S-Corp will be assigned to various categories that you will later copy to your personal tax return as your personal income. It is not dividend income. The reason people prefer to take distributions from their S-Corps instead of salary is because you don't pay SE taxes on the distributions. That is also the reason why the IRS forces you to pay yourself a reasonable salary. But the tax rate on the income, all of it, is your regular income tax rate, unless the S-Corp income is categorized in a preferred category. The fact that its an S-Corp income doesn't, by itself, allow any preferential treatment. If you're learning the stuff as you go - you should probably get in touch with a tax professional to advise you. All the S-Corp income must be distributed. Its not a matter of \"\"avoiding paying the tax\"\", its the matter of \"\"you must do it\"\". Not a choice. My answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer (circ 230 disclaimer).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ec8414da1e0a42a4da03f9edf304eb", "text": "\"For MCD, the 47¢ is a regular dividend on preferred stock (see SEC filing here). Common stock holders are not eligible for this amount, so you need to exclude this amount. For KMB, there was a spin-off of Halyard Health. From their IR page on the spin-off: Kimberly-Clark will distribute one share of Halyard common stock for every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark common stock you own as of the close of business on the record date. The deal closed on 2014-11-03. At the time HYH was worth $37.97 per share, so with a 1:8 ratio this is worth about $4.75. Assuming you were able to sell your HYH shares at this price, the \"\"dividend\"\" in the data is something you want to keep. With all the different types of corporate actions, this data is extremely hard to keep clean. It looks like the Quandl source is lacking here, so you may need to consider looking at other vendors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e23eda4b8b64a62749c8eb12447ab724", "text": "\"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ee5f967f040a013fe5a5188ca5f7d40", "text": "Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bf9c168d813c28cba490998fef20d5e", "text": "\"Be careful of the other answers here. Many are wrong or partially wrong. The question implies that you knew this, but for everyone else's benefit, you can keep you LLC organization and still elect to be treated as a S-Corp by the IRS just for tax purposes. You do this by filing Form 2553 with the IRS. (You can also, by the way, elect to be taxed as a \"\"regular\"\" C-Corp if you want, although that's probably not advantageous. See Form 8832.) The advantage of electing to be treated as an S-Corp is that income beyond what constitutes a \"\"reasonable salary\"\" are not subject to social security and medicare taxes as they would when paid was wages or counted as self-employment income on Schedule C. Depending on what you need to pay yourself to meet the \"\"reasonable salary\"\" test, your overall income, and other factors about your business, this could result in tax savings. Contrary to other answers here, making this election will not force you to create a board of directors. You are still an LLC for all purposes except taxes, so whatever requirements you had in organization and governance at the state level will not change. You will have to file a \"\"corporate\"\" tax return on Form 1120S (and likely some corresponding state tax form), so that is additional paperwork, but this \"\"corporate\"\" return does not mean the S-Corp pays taxes itself. With a couple of exceptions, the S-Corp pays no taxes directly (and therefore does not pay at the corporate tax rate). Instead the S-Corp apportions its income, expenses, and deductions to the owner(s) on Schedule K. The owners get their portion reported from the S-Corp on Schedule K1 and then include that on their personal Form 1040 to pay tax at their personal rate. In addition to filing Form 1120S, you will have to handle payroll taxes, which will create some additional administrative work and/or cost. Using a payroll service for this will likely be your best option and not terribly expensive. You've also got the issue of determining your reasonable salary within the rules, which is the subject of other questions on this site and other IRS guidance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b673df4129fb2dab004b655c4a601aa", "text": "No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe9092bd89d9397b81899948937ce3bc", "text": "Shareholder's Equity consists of two main things: The initial capitalization of the company (when the shares were first sold, plus extra share issues) and retained earnings, which is the amount of money the company has made over and above capitalization, which has not been re-distributed back to shareholders. So yes, it is the firm's total equity financing-- the initial capitalization is the equity that was put into the company when it was founded plus subsequent increases in equity due to share issues, and retained earnings is the increase in equity that has occurred since then which has not yet been re-distributed to shareholders (though it belongs to them, as the residual claimants). Both accounts are credited when they increase, because they represent an increase in cash, that is debited, so in order to make credits = debits they must be credits. (It doesn't mean that the company has that much cash on hand, as the cash will likely be re-invested). Shareholder's Equity is neither an asset nor a liability: it is used to purchase assets and to reduce liabilities, and is simply a measure of assets minus liabilities that is necessary to make the accounting equation balance: Since the book value of stocks doesn't change that often (because it represents the price the company sold it for, not the current value on the stock market, and would therefore only change when there were new share issues), almost all changes in total assets or in total liabilities are reflected in Retained Earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d1b6d0e815236cc2d30689a315ddbe6", "text": "You report what you contributed (sum of monthly investments that you made) to the bond fund. Distributions are the earnings in the account that stay in the account and have no tax consequences (in particular, you don't report them as income on your tax returns) until you withdraw the money later.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ce475229839fec15efb664cd7ad7ac50", "text": "Your home doesn't belong to the partnership, it belongs to you. So you can (if qualified) deduct home office usage as a business expense on your individual tax return. Same goes to your partner. Similarly any other unreimbursed expense.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "122f3058c852e263c160735fb876b210", "text": "No. The equipment costs are not necessarily a direct expense. Depending on the time of purchase and type of the expenditure you may need to capitalize it and depreciate it over time. For example, if you buy a computer - you'll have to depreciate it over 5 years. Some expenditures can be expensed under Section 179 rules, but there are certain conditions to be made, including business revenue. So if your business revenue is $3K - your Sec. 179 deduction is limited to $3K even if more purchases can qualify. Not every purchase qualifies for Sec. 179 treatment, and not all the State tax rules conform to the Federal treatment. Get a professional advice from a CPA/EA licensed in your State.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fd632a34c4689f4fcdbfb85bb386537", "text": "You have to file and issue each one of them a 1099 if you are paying them $600 or more for the year. Because you need to issue a 1099 to them (so they can file their own taxes), I don't think there's a way that you could just combine all of them. Additionally, you may want to make sure that you are properly classifying these people as contractors in case they should be employees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2226740c96f085d39471c7c914edee3f", "text": "If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C. There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040. You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities. In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business. This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway. You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA. If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income. This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR). This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it. It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28485e0d5f2e225bab5d6de3d6a31d45", "text": "Definitely get a lawyer to write up all the details of the partnership in a formal agreement. If your ex does not want to do this, that is a bad sign. You both need to be clear about expectations and responsibilities in this partnership, and define an exit strategy in the case one of you wants out. This is the most fair to both parties. Generally, what is common is that property is split cleanly when the relationship ends. I would strongly recommend you both work towards a clean split with no joint property ownership. How this looks depends on your unique situation. To address your questions 2 and 3: You have two roles here - tenant and owner. As a 50% owner, you are running a business with a partner. That business will have assets (home), income, expenses, and profit. You basically need to run this partnership as a simple business. All the rent income (your rent and the other tenant's) should go into a separate account. The mortgage and all other housing expenses are then paid from only this account. Any excess is then profit that may be split 50/50. All expenses should be agreed upon by both of you, either by contract or by direct communication. You should see a financial professional to make sure accounting and taxes are set up properly. Under this system, your ex could do work on the house and be paid from the business income. However, they are responsible to you to provide an estimate and scope of work, just like any other contractor. If you as a joint owner agree to his price, he then could be paid out of the business income. This reduces the business cash flow for the year accordingly. You can probably see how this can get very complicated very fast. There is really no right or wrong answer on what both of you decide is fair and best. For the sake of simplicity and the least chance of a disaster, the usual and recommended action is to cleanly split all property. Good Luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "839decb72a043b2574f664f4caef55df", "text": "How is the business organized? If as a General Partnership or LLC that reports as a partnership, you will be getting distributed to you each year your % ownership of the earnings or loss. But note, this is a paperwork transfer on the form K-1, which must then carryover to your tax return, it does not require the transfer of cash to you. If organized as an S-Corp, you should be holding shares of the company that you may sell back to the S-Corp, generally as outlined in the original articles of incorporation. The annual 'dividend' (earnings remaining after all expenses are paid) should be distributed to you in proportion to the shares you hold. If a C-Corp and there is only one class of stock that you also hold a percentage of, the only 'profits' that must be distributed proportionally to you are declared dividends by the board of directors. Most family run business are loosely formed with not much attention paid to the details of partnership agreements or articles of incorporation, and so don't handle family ownership disputes very well. From my experience, trying to find an amicable settlement is the best...and least expensive....approach to separation from the business. But if this can't be done or there is a sizable value to the business, you may have to get your own legal counsel.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6506ac79cb6824fd2b472b524cba0f", "text": "Since you both are members of the LLC - it is not a single-member LLC, thus you have to file the tax return on behalf of the LLC (I'm guessing you didn't elect corporate treatment, so you would be filing 1065, which is the default). You need to file form 4868 on behalf of yourselves as individuals, and form 7004 on behalf of the LLC as the partnership. Since the LLC is disregarded (unless you explicitly chose it not to be, which seems not to be the case) the taxes will in fact flow to your individual return(s), but the LLC will have to file the informational return on form 1065 and distribute K-1 forms to each of you. So you wouldn't pay additional estimated taxes with the extension, as you don't pay any taxes with the form 1065 itself. If you need a help understanding all that and filling the forms - do talk to a professional (EA or CPA licensed in your state). Also, reconsider not sending any payment. I suggest sending $1 with the extension form even if you expect a refund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8901ebcbe588b9b70a36bb5f84f71a5", "text": "\"You're a partnership. You should ask the money to be paid to the partnership. You'll have to fill partnership income tax return (form 1065) and each of you will get a K-1 schedule with your own personal portion of the income. For example, you're Adam, Ben and Clara. You work together on a project and are being paid. You get a check for $300 issued to \"\"Adam, Ben and Clara, DBA ABC Partnership\"\". You don't have to have a DBA, it just makes it easier to show you as a single entity. You then deposit the check to an account you set up for your partnership, and from that account you transfer $100 to each of you. Year end, you file form 1065, showing $300 income, and attach K-1 for each of the partners showing $100 income. That $100 income will flow to your individual tax returns. The overhead here is setting up a partnership account, potentially making a DBA, and filing the extra tax return. That's the proper way to do it, especially if it is something you're going to do regularly. For a one-time thing, one of you can get paid, report it as income on his/her Schedule C, and issue 1099 to the rest of you for your parts, and deduct the amount as his/her expense. Here, the overhead is Schedule C for each of you (instead of Schedule E if handling it as a partnership), extra 1099 forms (instead of 1065 and K-1s), and a risk of one partner defrauding the others (depends on how much you trust each other). With proper documentation, each of these is equally legal, and tax-wise the costs are the same (i.e.: either way you pay the same taxes). With partnership the overhead is a bit more expensive (DBA+1065 extra cost), but in the long term it will make your life easier if you do this kind of thing regularly. You may want to consider setting up your partnership as a LLC/LLP (depending on what your State allows), but that would require State paperwork and potentially more fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b9e65e73e1d2ee9ac596a33ff6295d8", "text": "Since from the question it seems that you're talking about the US taxation, I'll assume that. You can definitely continue filing jointly. Being members of a partnership has no bearing on how you file your own tax return. The partnership will distribute K-1 to each of you separately, but you'll report both of them on the same return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0032f41609f12a0c1aab22a62a5e196", "text": "\"Why not start a third account, the \"\"house\"\" account? However you decide to fund it, equally or in proportion to income, you both chip in, and the payments for all joint expenses come from there. Rent, utilities, food, phone, cable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "067252b5ff9ca4e62bf6ff506f4bd7cb", "text": "The general rule is: Generally, in order to claim a business deduction for your home, you must use part of your home exclusively and regularly: Exclusively seems to be the toughest standard and I do not know exactly how strict the IRS's interpretation is. Working in your living room where you regularly watch TV and have people over on the weekends would seem to fail that test. A separate room with your computer in it would pass it. If it was your only computer and you regularly played online games with it, that would seem to be a grey area. The IRA booklet covering this area is here http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p587.pdf I know people that have rented rooms in other places or made use of rental offices for this purpose.", "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": "f9a15d4ecc758b477a3b68fb24dd21a4", "text": "\"You can hire a good CPA for a really low price. They can advise you on how to do exactly what you said and many other aspects of your business. Mine does this as a courtesy with the filing of my taxes. And the filing of my taxes is not all that much. It is great value for the money. Recently I had to make a decision that is a potential audit situation and can go badly if not properly documented. It was not hard to document (with the CPA's help), but now that it is so I don't lose mental energy on if I am going to get \"\"caught\"\" by the IRS. Let them come, I have the necessary documentation. Beyond the IRS, I really like the documentation that you are trying to put behind this loan. Having this in writing helps smooth this potentially bad situation between you and the BIL. I would go above and beyond writing conditions and contingencies down in order to keep this relationship happy. With these kinds of things, cover the applicable 5 \"\"Ds\"\" of partnership agreements: However, I would add another: Boom. What happens if your business takes off? Perhaps there should be a clause to retire the loan prior to you expanding beyond a certain level. Please understand I am not suggesting that any of these bad things are going to happen to you (except the Boom, I really hope that happens to you), but it is a way to communicate contingent actions if one of the risks of small business materializes. Having agreements ahead of time helps avoid crisis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7455319de0de59050f5b59e53c48bbe1", "text": "\"I am not a lawyer nor a tax accountant, so if such chimes in here I'll gladly defer. But my understanding is: If you're romantically involved and living together you're considered a \"\"household\"\" and thus your finances are deemed shared for tax purposes. Any money your partner gives you toward paying the bills is not considered \"\"rent\"\" but \"\"her contribution to household expenses\"\". (I don't know the genders but I'll call your partner \"\"her\"\" for convenience.) This is not income and is not taxed. On the off chance that the IRS actually investigated your arrangement, don't call any money she gives you \"\"rent\"\": call it \"\"her contribution to living expenses\"\". If you were two (or more) random people sharing a condo purely for economic reasons, i.e. you are not a family in any sense but each of you would have trouble affording a place on your own, it's common for all the room mates to share the rent or mortgage, utilities, etc, but for one person to collect all the money and write one check to the landlord, etc. Tax law does not see this as the person who writes the check collecting rent from the others, it's just a book-keeping convenience, and so there is no taxable transaction. (Of course the landlord owes taxes on the rental income, but that's not your problem.) In that case it likely would be different if one person outright owned the place and really was charging the others rent. But then he could claim deductions for all the expenses of maintaining it, including depreciation, so if it really was a case of room mates sharing expenses, the taxable income would likely be just about zero anyway. So short answer: If you really are a \"\"couple\"\", there are no taxable transactions here. If the IRS should actually question it, don't refer to it as \"\"collecting rent\"\" or any other words that imply this is a business arrangement. Describe it as a couple sharing expenses. (People sometimes have created tax problems for themselves by their choice of words in an audit.) But the chance that you would ever be audited over something like this is probably remote. I suppose that if at some point you break up, but you continue to live together for financial reasons (or whatever reasons), that could transform this into a business relationship and that would change my answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d86ebab266bf0a5d9f55be7a5222389", "text": "I am assuming this is USA. While it is a bit of a pain, you are best off to have separate accounts for your business and personal. This way, if it comes to audit, you hand the IRS statements for your business account(s) and they match your return. As a further precaution I would have the card(s) you use for business expenses look different then the ones you use for personal so you don't mess another one up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc944b121bd06b9a75a12eae2177827d", "text": "It actually depends on the services provided. If you're renting through AirBnB, you're likely to provide much more services to the tenants than a traditional rental. It may raise it to a level when it is no longer a passive activity. See here, for starters: Providing substantial services. If you provide substantial services that are primarily for your tenant's convenience, such as regular cleaning, changing linen, or maid service, you report your rental income and expenses on Schedule C (Form 1040), Profit or Loss From Business, or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040), Net Profit From Business. Use Form 1065, U.S. Return of Partnership Income, if your rental activity is a partnership (including a partnership with your spouse unless it is a qualified joint venture). Substantial services do not include the furnishing of heat and light, cleaning of public areas, trash collection, etc. For information, see Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. Also, you may have to pay self-employment tax on your rental income using Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax. For a discussion of “substantial services,” see Real Estate Rents in Publication 334, chapter 5", "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": "43cc8bc27d099e616f7caa21a347e45a", "text": "No state taxes, but Italy also has a favorable treaty with the US Federal Government. Look into to lowering your federal taxes to 5% ;) its a thick read, http://www.irs.gov/businesses/international/article/0,,id=169601,00.html and also try to determine if the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion applies to you, reducing your Federal tax to ZERO on the first $95,100 earned abroad. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97130,00.html but then you may be subject to a 20%+ italy tax. so maybe you should just try for the tax treaty", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a89404183a0ad268890174c0623c23d", "text": "This question came up again (Living in Florida working remotely - NY employer withholds NYS taxes - Correct or Incorrect?) and the poster on the new version didn't find the existing answers to be adequate, so I'm adding a new answer. NYS will tax this income if the arrangement is for the convenience of the employee. If the arrangement is necessary to complete the work, then you should have no NYS tax. New York state taxes all New York-source salary and wage income of nonresident employees when the arrangement is for convenience rather than by necessity (Laws of New York, § 601(e), 20 NYCRR 132.18). Source: http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2009/jun/20091371.html Similar text can also be found here: http://www.koscpa.com/newsletter-article/state-tax-consequences-telecommuting/ The NYS tax document governing this situation seems to be TSB-M-06(5)I. I looked at this page from NYS that was mentioned in the answer by @littleadv. That language does at first glance seem to lead to a different answer, but the ruling in the tax memo seems to say that if you're out of state only for your convenience then the services were performed in NYS for NYS tax purpose. From the memo: However, any allowance claimed for days worked outside New York State must be based upon the performance of services which of necessity, as distinguished from convenience, obligate the employee to out-of- state duties in the service of his employer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f54cb2a890547946bb92bb2091023b4", "text": "\"ECI is relevant to non-resident aliens who are engaged in trade or business in the US. For that, you have to be present in the US, to begin with, or to own a business or property in the US. So the people to whom it is relevant are non-resident aliens in the US or business/property owners, not foreign contractors. From the IRS: The following categories of income are usually considered to be connected with a trade or business in the United States. You are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States if you are temporarily present in the United States as a nonimmigrant on an \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" visa. The taxable part of any U.S. source scholarship or fellowship grant received by a nonimmigrant in \"\"F,\"\" \"\"J,\"\" \"\"M,\"\" or \"\"Q\"\" status is treated as effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States. If you are a member of a partnership that at any time during the tax year is engaged in a trade or business in the United States, you are considered to be engaged in a trade or business in the United States. You usually are engaged in a U.S. trade or business when you perform personal services in the United States. If you own and operate a business in the United States selling services, products, or merchandise, you are, with certain exceptions, engaged in a trade or business in the United States. For example, profit from the sale in the United States of inventory property purchased either in this country or in a foreign country is effectively connected trade or business income. Gains and losses from the sale or exchange of U.S. real property interests (whether or not they are capital assets) are taxed as if you are engaged in a trade or business in the United States. You must treat the gain or loss as effectively connected with that trade or business. Income from the rental of real property may be treated as ECI if the taxpayer elects to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b6283d1a0db1485ca2d42467220e43e", "text": "Prachi - While most non-resident aliens are not allowed to claim the standard deduction here are some exceptions: IRS Law under Article 21: ARTICLE 21 Payments Received by Students and Apprentices This falls under the U.S.A.-India Tax Treaty. Sources: I hope this helps. So, yes, I do believe you would be able to claim the standard deduction, although it's always good to check with a tax adviser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b06cf61d9da1756b77f18ecfb634e214", "text": "You do not need to report gifts from US residents (US citizens/green card holders/tax residents due to length of stay) since filing gift tax return is their responsibility. In case of foreigners you need to report gifts in excess of $100K. In any case, transfers between spouses are exempt from gift tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "505e9b5d00c1c37a1fa0fc01c0688472", "text": "No, if you are a nonresident alien, you cannot deduct sales tax. You can only deduct state income tax. 1040NR Schedule A (which is page 3 of 1040NR) does not contain an option for sales tax, like 1040 Schedule A does. If you are a resident alien, then you can deduct sales tax.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93fc4ef00f459bf1627f5af390b72a44", "text": "Completely different. Canadians can be deemed non-residents by severing their residential ties with Canada and emigrating to another country, and no longer required to file unless they have certain sources of Canadian income. *See* http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/living-abroad/taxation No such classifications exist with US citizenship. You file a return no matter what, even if you haven't stepped foot in the US in decades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd4828eae5fcc94632df84f5418fc8fd", "text": "\"Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the \"\"no income tax\"\" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da160fffe8072dca28be2c03e430316a", "text": "There's virtually no way for a person to completely avoid taxation at some point in their lives. Between payroll, sales, excise, and the like, you've been taxed at some point. And whether or not the individual paid is irrelevant to the ownership claim being invalid.", "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": "ed944c03c1e7096cb07630e758530dac", "text": "Both states will want to tax you. Your tax home is where you maintain a domicile, are registered to vote, etc. and you will probably want to keep this as MA since you state that MA is your permanent residence and you are staying in a rented place in PA. But be careful about voter registration; that is one of the items that can be used to determine your state of residence. OK, so if you and your spouse are MA residents, you should file jointly as residents in MA and as nonresidents in PA. Do the calculations on the nonresident return first, and then the calculations on the resident return. Typically, on a nonresident tax return, the calculations are effectively the following: Report all your income (usually AGI from the Federal return). Call this $X. Compute the PA state tax due on $X. Note that you follow the rules for nonresidents in doing this, not the calculations used by PA residents. Call the amount of tax you computed as $Y. What part of the total income $X is attributable to PA sources? If this amount is $Z, then you owe PA $Y times (Z/X). On the resident return in MA, you will likely get some credit for the taxes paid to PA, and this will reduce your MA tax burden. Usually the maximum credit is limited to the lesser of actual tax paid to PA and what you would have had to pay MA for the same income. As far as withholding is concerned, your employer in PA will withhold PA taxes as if you are a PA resident, but you can adjust the amount via the PA equivalent of IRS Form W4 so as to account for any additional tax that might be due because you will be filing as a nonresident. Else you can pay estimated taxes via the PA equivalent of IRS Form 1040ES. Similarly, your wife can adjust her withholding to account for the MA taxes that you will owe on the joint income, or you can pay estimated taxes to MA too. Note that it is unlikely that your employer in Pennsylvania will withhold Massachusetts taxes (and send them to Massachusetts) for you, e.g. if it is a ma-and-pa store, but there may be special deals available if your employer does business in both states, i.e. is a MA-and-PA store.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f99de8c7958c0d3021748790f921142", "text": "Yes. Here's the answer to this question from oregon.gov: 3. I am moving into Oregon. What income will be taxed by Oregon? As an Oregon resident, you are taxed on ALL income regardless of the source of the income. This includes, but is not limited to: You may need to pay estimated taxes if you don't have Oregon withholding on your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de65a195799a90cbf017660532c71024", "text": "Multistate Impact of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 In general, states with rolling conformity will follow this change. States with specific date conformity will continue to follow the date of conformity currently in effect and will not follow the change. A few states may have their own QSBS rules and will not conform to or be impacted by this provision of the Act. The chart that follows summarizes these principles as applied to the enumerated states: STATE: QSBS Exclusion Conformity: California statutes refer to the IRC QSBS provisions but modify and limit their applicability, and would not be impacted by this provision of the Act. However, California’s provisions were ruled unconstitutional in recent litigation and the California Franchise Tax Board has recently taken the position that gain exclusions and deferrals will be denied for all open tax years. Florida Florida does not impose an income tax on individuals and therefore this provision of the Act is inapplicable and will have no impact. Illinois Due to its rolling conformity, Illinois follows this provision of the Act. Because New York effectively provides for rolling conformity to the IRC, through reference to federal adjusted gross income as the state starting point, New York effectively follows this provision of the Act. Texas does not impose an income tax on individuals", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e749065a0f4b7021263d95af5976c0d", "text": "I agree that double taxation makes no sense regardless of individual or corporation. Having said that, it's my understanding that Murca offers corporations tax credits on foreign taxes paid to avoid double taxation. I'm pretty sure that a similar vehicle exists for individuals as well. My issue is entirely with corporations paying off legislators to avoid taxes that they have an obligation to pay in the country that they operate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23b0dfdbfbf5dd51940969b729167d69", "text": "non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c7b5e49eac72c5c8079a6d70519277a2", "text": "how do these margins vary over time Depends on a lot of factors. The bank's financial health, bank's ongoing business activities, profits generated from it's other businesses. If it is new to mortgages, it mightn't take a bigger margin to grow its business. If it is in the business for long, it might not be ready to tweak it down. If the housing market is down, they might lower their margin's to make lending attractive. If their competitors are lowering their margins, the bank in question might also. Do they rise when the base rate rises, or fall, or are they uncorrelated? When rates rise(money is being sucked out to curb spending), large amount of spending decreases. So you can imagine margins will need to decrease to keep the mortgage lending at previous levels. Would economic growth drive them up or down? Economic growth might make them go up. Like in case 1, base rates are low -> people are spending(chances are inflation will be high) -> margins will be higher(but real value of money will be dependent on inflation) Is there any kind of empirical or theoretical basis to guess at their movement? Get a basic text book on macroeconomics, the rates and inflation portion will be there. How the rates influence the money supply and all. It will much more sense. But the answer will encompass a mixture of all conditions and not a single one in isolation. So there isn't a definitive answer. This might give you an idea of how it works. It is for variable mortgage but should be more or less near to what you desire.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "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": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72", "text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.", "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": "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": "35ec6ed1d2beb27b9ab3d584c9de8470", "text": "Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target. Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently). I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share. As an example, say you have shares in X, Co. X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%. All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall. Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price? Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those? The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d74ce0acb761e346e6dfe3323d9ea77c", "text": "The article John cites says no correlation, but this chart from the article says otherwise; One sees the rate drop from 14% to 4% and housing rise from an index of 50 to near 190. (reaching over to my TI BA-35 calculator) I see that at 14%, $1000/mo will buy $84,400 worth of mortgage, but at 4%, it will buy $209,500. 2-1/2 times the borrowing power for the same payment. But wait, my friends at West Egg tell me that inflation means I can't compare $1000 in 1980 to the same $1000 in 2010. The $1,000 inflates to $2611 (i.e. an income rising only with inflation, no more) and that can fund a mortgage for $546,900. This is 6.5 times the original borrowing power, yet the housing index 'only' rose 3.8X. See that crazy chart? Housing actually got cheaper from 1980 to the peak. Statistics can say whatever you wish. Interest rate change drove all the change in housing prices, but not quite as much as it should have. To answer your question - I expect that when rates rise (and they will) housing prices will take a hit. In today's dollars, a current $1000 borrows (at 4%) nearly $210K, but at 6%, just $167K. If rates took a jump from these record lows, that's the nature of the risk you'd take.", "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": "65cf9a90015e47167757486425ce4587", "text": "\"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (\"\"rehypothecation\"\"). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right. I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares \"\"for a very short time\"\". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect \"\"pocketing the interest\"\" since interest accrues as a function of time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2278504170f25f5ade3ffef9c2df34fb", "text": "The value does change from 12.61% to 13.48%. The difference between re-investing cashflows at 14% vs 12% is not big enough to change the rounded value. Edit: The initial cashflow is discounted at t0, meaning it's already equal to its present value and the finance rate doesn't have an effect. It does impact future outgoing cashflows, as you've noted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a18c18f6b6591c375d4587f16548dc7a", "text": "In a strictly mathematical sense, no. Or rather, it depends what 'long run' means. Say today the home average is $200K, and payment is $900/mo. The $900 today happens to be about 20% of the median US monthly income (which is approximately $54,000/yr). Housing rises 4%/yr, income 3%/yr. In 100 years (long enough?) the house costs $10M but incomes are 'only' $1.03M/yr, and the mortgage, even at the same rate is $45K/month, or, to be clear, it rose to 52% of monthly income. My observation is that, long term, the median home costs what 25% of median income will support, in terms of the mortgage after downpayment. Long term. That means that if you graph this, you'll see trends above and below the long term line. You'll see a 25 year bubble form starting in the late 80's as rates dropped from near 18% to the Sub-4% in the early 00s. But once you normalize it to percent of income to pay the loan, much of the bubble is flattened out. At 18%, $1500/mo bought you a $100K mortgage, but at 3.5%, it bought $335K. This is in absolute dollars, wages also rose during that time. I am just clarifying how rates distort the long term trends and create the short term anomalies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eb15fd9cad42cbd62a7309b9306c4e1", "text": "But the notes are always called at par, no? So you have a fixed yield which depends on the coupon and price you bought it at. I still don't see how the company doing better than expected changes the yield on your investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59c81481b8726cfc411fafbc7b7c61d3", "text": "Does the price only start the day based on the previous day's rebalancing? No, the tracker will open at the price according to the stock it is tracking. So for example, if the ETF closed at $10 but the tracked stock continued trading and was priced $15 when the ETF reopened the ETF will open at $15. (Example is for a non-leveraged ETF.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bad7733c71b5c618301ebf612cd85e05", "text": "Usually that is the case that when fixed rates are lower than the variable rates, it is an indication that the banks feel the next movement in rates could be down. You also need to look at the fixed rates for different periods, for example 1 year fixed compared to 3 year fixed and 5 year fixed rates. If you find the 3 and 5 year fixed rates are higher than the 1 year fixed rates this could be an indication that the banks feel rates will fall in the short term but the falls won't last long and will continue to rise after a year or so. If the 3 year fixed rates are also low in comparison, then the banks may feel that the economy is heading for a longer term down trend. The banks won't want to lose out, so will change their fixed rates on their perception of where they feel the economy is headed. Since your post in May 2011, the standard variable rate has since dropped twice (in November and December) to be at 7.30%. You will also find that fixed rates have also been dropped further by the banks, indicating additional future cuts in the variable rates. Regards, Victor", "title": "" }, { "docid": "799a9ee5e202bf0686256b32b8c4a361", "text": "\"As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the \"\"ability to borrow\"\" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's \"\"PV\"\" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly \"\"gives one furiously to think\"\" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67a9aa56c7f5ce0cb27dd013d0dc2a8", "text": "Mortgage rates tend to track the yield on the 10-year Treasury note. The CBOE Interest Rate 10-Year T-Note, TNX, is a security directly related to this rate. Divide the CBOE price of TNX by 10 to get the yield. One can also track the 10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX). One can also track the 10Y T-Note yield at yahoo finance using ticker symbol (^TNX).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9afa9a63cbedc37a3769f61c1b6654ad", "text": "\"Nearly every country has its own exchange because so many countries have their own currency, and currency permeates every part of an exchange's business. Generally, an exchange will support transaction and settlement only in local currency. Securities (except those that explicitly enable FX trading) are denominated and will trade in a single currency-- you can only buy a share of IBM in U.S. dollars. Securities trading always seeks to be a clean, frictionless, scalable process, and adding cross-currency translation to the mix would just complicate things. So it's one exchange, one currency. In most countries, citizens and even businesses are largely restricted to having bank accounts in local currency. There are various political reasons for this, but there it is: it is difficult or impossible to open a domestic bank account in a foreign-denominated currency. A public company headquartered in a given country will be required to publish financial statements in local currency, will be more likely to do business with the local citizenry and businesses in that currency, and so will likely look for investors from that same pool-- which generally means listing in local currency, which means on an exchange in that country. There are exceptions, of course. Big multinationals do business all over the world, and many seek investors all over the world as well. Mechanisms have been created to permit this (American Depositary Receipts or ADRs, for example). But once again, cross-currency translation makes things more complicated, so ADRs and their like are only practical for very big international players. As to why there may be many exchanges in a single country, IMO Nick R has it right. Read \"\"Flash Boys\"\"; many market makers profit from trading between exchanges, and so have an interest in there being many of them. And in the U.S., regulators have expressed an interest in \"\"innovation\"\" in the exchange space, and so permit them. There is also an argument to be made against having a single \"\"Too Big To Fail\"\" exchange just like the argument for banks, but I wouldn't call that a \"\"reason\"\" for the current state of affairs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b8fefc80b1480b222601567516f7e6", "text": "Stock exchanges have been undergoing a period of consolidation for the past hundred years for the exact reasons you mentioned. The existence of digital trading, harmonized laws and regulations, and fewer relevant currencies have made it more practical for mergers and acquisitions between exchanges. Stock exchanges are most often times private companies that compete with other exchanges, so that also promotes the existence of many exchanges.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2df1f883c931101ae884951adcb3ebc", "text": "\"Why are there so many stock exchanges in the world? The simple answer is that there is a lot of money to be made by charging fees to facilitate the trading of securities, but there are other factors at play here relating to new technologies. Trading volumes have increased rapidly in recent years. According to this ITG data, in 1997, 6.5 billion shares were traded on US exchanges. By 2015 this number had increased to 40.8 billion shares. There are a number of reasons for this rapid increase in volumes. Most significant would be the introduction of new technologies that allow for high volume, high frequency trading. This increase in activity has be accompanied by an increase in the number of stock exchanges. As CQM points out in his answer, there has been considerable consolidation in the ownership of \"\"legacy\"\" exchanges. For example, the NYSE merged with EuroNext in 2007, and the combined group is now owned by the Intercontinental Exchange, which also owns numerous smaller stock exchanges as well as a number of derivative/commodities exchanges. However, this consolidation in ownership has been more than matched by the creation of many \"\"virtual\"\" exchanges. In North America these virtual exchanges are called \"\"Alternative Trading Systems\"\". In Europe, they are called \"\"Multilateral Trading Facilities\"\". These new virtual exchanges, sometimes referred to as \"\"dark pools\"\", have begun to significantly eat away at the volumes of the legacy exchanges. If you look at the ITG data (linked above), you will see that the total volume of shares traded on legacy exchanges actually peaked in 2008, and has since then has decreased. This coincides roughly with the appearance of the virtual exchanges and the new high frequency trading methods. According to this paper from the SEC site, dated 2013, Alternative Trading Systems accounted for 11.3% of total volumes in 2012. This will have increased rapidly in the years since 2012. It is this loss of business that has prompted the consolidation in the ownership of the legacy exchanges. These new exchange are \"\"conceptually the same\"\" as the legacy exchanges and must play by the same regulatory rules.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4048f622462175257b20a025cffe2227", "text": "The total value of the stock market more or less tracks the total value of the companies listed in the stock market, which is more or less the total value of the US economy (since very few industries are nationalized or dominated by privately held companies). The US economy has consistently grown over time, thanks to the wonders of industrialization, the discovery of new markets, new natural resources, etc. Thus, the stock market has continued to grow as well. Will it forever? No. The United States will not exist for ever. But there's no obvious reason it won't continue to grow, at least for a while, though of course if I could accurately predict that I would be far richer than I am. Why do other countries not have the same result? China is its own ball of wax since it's a sort-of-market-sort-of-command economy. Japan has major issues economically right now and doesn't really have the natural or people resources; it also had a huge market bubble a while back that it's never recovered from. And many European countries are doing fine. German's DAX30 index was at around 2500 in 2004 and is now at nearly 13000. That's pretty fast growth. If you go back further (there was a crash ending in around 2004), you can see around the fall of the Berlin wall it was still around 2000; even going that far back, that's about an 8% annual bump. The FTSE was also around 2000 back then, around 8000 now, which is around 5% annual growth. Many of these indexes were more seriously hurt than the US markets in the two major crashes of this millenium; while the US markets fell a lot in 2008, they didn't fall nearly as much as many smaller markets in 2002, so had less to recover from. Both DAX and FTSE suffered similar falls in 2002 to 2008, and so even though during good periods they've grown quite quickly, they haven't overall done as well as they could have given the crashes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b032ce2063c3d7d8952a3ba8ebc1121a", "text": "You don't have to go through an exchange. That wasn't the problem. It was that the people trading on them wouldn't be willing to take your offer. An exchange can't just list a company. They need that company's consent and the company need's the exchange's consent. I don't know if you're aware of this but that was also an entirely new disaster during Facebook's IPO. Computer glitches didn't help. What you're talking about is a called a secondary market, kind of. Stock exchanges offer those too, especially for options. That's the typical stock footage you see of guys on wall street yelling and screaming while throwing paper up in the air.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b1c36e5d1791682dd0255c1fe4c7d4", "text": "I don't know why stocks in some industries tend to have lower prices per share than others. It doesn't really matter much. Whether a company has 1,000,0000 shares selling for $100 each, or 10,000,000 shares selling for $10 each, either way the total value is the same. Companies generally like to keep the share price relatively low so that if someone wants to buy a small amount, they can. Like if the price was $10,000 per share, than an investor with less than $10,000 to put in that one stock would be priced out of the market. If it's $10, then if someone wants $10 they can buy one share, and if someone wants $10,000 they can buy 1000 shares. As to why energy stocks are volatile, I can think of several reasons. One, in our current world, energy is highly susceptible to politics. A lot of the world's energy comes from the Middle East, which is a notoriously unstable region. Any time there's conflict there, energy supplies from the region become uncertain. Oil-producing countries may embargo countries that they don't like. A war will, at the very least, interfere with transportation and shipping, and may result in oil wells being destroyed. Etc. Two, energy is consumed when you use it, and most consumers have very limited ability to stockpile. So you're constantly buying the energy you need as you need it. So if demand goes down, it is reflected immediately. Compare this to, say, clothing. Most people expect to keep the same clothes for years, wearing them repeatedly. (Hopefully washing them now and then!) So if for some reason you decided today that you only need three red shirts instead of four, this might not have any immediate impact on your buying. It could be months before you would have bought a new red shirt anyway. There is a tendency for the market to react rather slowly to changes in demand for shirts. But with energy, if you decide you only need to burn 3 gallons of gas per week instead of 4, your consumption goes down immediately, within days. Three, really adding to number two, energy is highly perishable, especially some forms of energy. If a solar power station is capable of producing 10 megawatts but today there is only demand for 9 megawatts, you can't save the unused megawatt for some future time when demand is higher. It's gone. (You can charge a battery with it, but that's pretty limited.) You can pile up coal or store natural gas in a tank until you need it, but you can't save the output of a power plant. Note numbers two and three also apply to food, which is why food production is also very volatile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68091295b7fb6720774adf3dda051fda", "text": "It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers. If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker. Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81e3c658b4c1ad494a06e67bc0a6de25", "text": "Non-electronic stock exchanges still exist because they used to exist. There are a lot of people in trading firms who grew up with floor trading and don't want to give it up, either because they feel more comfortable with it or because they might lose their job if they went away from it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59f4442413d1763b8006e17302d92bb", "text": "The reason a company creates more stock is to generate more capital so that this can be utilized and more returns can be generated. It is commonly done as a follow on public offer. Typically the funds are used to retire high cost debts and fund future expansion. What stops the company from doing it? Are Small investors cheated? It's like you have joined a car pool with 4 people and you are beliving that you own 1/4th of the total seats ... so when most of them decide that we would be better of using Minivan with 4 more persons, you cannot complain that you now only own 1/8 of the total seats. Even before you were having just one seat, and even after you just have one seat ... overall it maybe better as the ride would be good ... :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992515091016e92c23ab724308d91cbb", "text": "\"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb40365ea193ef944818cd92378da144", "text": "He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59842b4cc87ff6f7e622e7c1b8a5f5e", "text": "\"Pay to play? You mean they pay for beefier data feeds that other firms don't need, sure they do. But everyone can trade on the US exchanges now (NYSE, NASDAQ, BATS, etc) which was not true 20 years ago when NYSE had the specialist monopoly, so yes the markets are more democratic than they've ever been. Side note, the exchanges do directly profit from increased trading volume because they take a small % of every trade, so I'm not sure what you mean they don't directly profit from it. Also I get the feeling you don't understand the scope of HFT activity, HFT peak profits were on the order of 7 billion during the highest volume time of the last decade (2005-2010). They are now around 1B. Compared to the trillions of dollars that change hands in the exchange per year, this is chump change, hardly a \"\"free money faucet\"\". Also Katsayuma opened yet another dark pool that caters to high volume clients (your goldmans and merrils). The only difference in IEX is it got a free marketing campaign to entice clients. Seriously, IEX is nothing more than the existing fixed cross dark pools, which btw screws over retail investors more than the lit exchanges like NASDAQ. Katsayuma got steamrolled in his executions because he couldn't keep up with the time and then hit the lottery jackpot by getting Michael Lewis to paint him as a \"\"hero\"\", honestly I'm confounded at how lucky that dude got. BTW broker dealers get preferential treatment in IEX, meaning they get to cut in front of the line in front of retail investors. Why are you so opinionated about this, did you make a few bad trades on eTrade and need a scapegoat?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6b17bfa485445555a5611682e477de", "text": "The suffix represents the stock exchange the stock is traded on. N represents the New York Stock Exchange and O represents the Nasdaq. Sometimes a stock can be listed on more than one exchange so the suffix will give you an indication of which exchange the stock is on. For example the Australian company BHP Billiton Ltd is listed on multiple exchanges so is given a different suffix for the different exchanges (especially when the code is the same for each exchange). Below are a few examples of BHP:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2827cf778c230ac62baa016936a44c42", "text": "Serious answer: If 7 banks owned the vast majority of houses for sale -- that is, on their balance sheet, at the peak of the housing bubble -- there would be. These 7 LCD companies produced the majority of LCDs globally. Real estate is far more decentralized, and in many times the bank merely provided financing for a third-party sale (from the builder, from any one of a hundred or so real estate companies, etc). (But I am assuming you probably weren't looking for a factual answer, anyway.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d354ffcba653ace3f0d5f2d49614d2d", "text": "First and foremost you need to be aware of what you are comparing. In this case, HSBC as traded on the NYSE exchange is not common shares, but an ADR (American Depository Receipt) with a 5:1 ratio from the actual shares. So for most intents and purposes owning one ADR is like owning five common shares. But for special events like dividends, there may be other considerations, such as the depository bank (the institution that created the ADR) may take a percentage. Further, given that some people, accounts or institutions may be required to invest in a given country or not, there may be some permanent price dislocation between the shares and the ADR, which can further lead to discrepancies which are then highlighted by the seeming difference in dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22", "text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d9775c0ff085d4d7023a275e8706142", "text": "\"A huge amount of money in all financial markets is from institutional investors, such as mutual funds, government pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, etc. For various reasons these funds do all of their trading at the end of the day. They care primarily that their end-of-day balances are in line with their targets and are easy to audit and far less about \"\"timing the market\"\" for the best possible trades. So, if you're looking at a stock that is owned by many institutional investors -- such as a stock (like AAPL) that makes up a significant portion of an index that many funds track -- there will be a huge amount of activity at this time relative to stocks that are less popular among institutions. Even just in its introduction this paper (PDF) gives a fair overview of other reasons why there's a lot of trading at end-of-day in general. (In fact, because of all this closing activity and the reliance on end-of-day prices as signposts for financial calculations, the end-of-day has for decades been the single most fraud-ridden time of the trading day. Electronic trading has done away with a lot of the straight-up thievery that floor traders and brokers used to get away with at the expense of the public, but it still exists. See, for example, any explanation of the term banging the close, or the penalties against 6 banks just last month for manipulating the FX market at the close.)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "b727ae7b43228b83efcdc86a2ddfa0c7", "text": "Looking at your dates, I think I see a pattern. It appears that your statement closing date is always 17 business days before the last business day of the month. For example, if you start at May 31 and start counting backwards, skipping Saturdays, Sundays, and May 30 (Memorial Day), you'll see that May 5 is 17 business days before May 31. I cannot explain why Bank of America would do this. If you ask them, let us know what they say. If it bothers you, find another bank. I do most of my banking (checking, savings, etc.) with a local credit union. Their statements end on the last day of the month, every month without fail. (Very nice, in my opinion.) I have two credit cards with nationally known banks, and although those statements end in the middle of the month, they are consistently on the same date every month. (One of them is on the 13th; the other date I can't recall right now.) You are right, a computer does the work, and your statement date should be able to fall on a weekend without trouble. Even when these were assembled by hand, the statement date could still be on a weekend, and they just wouldn't write it up until the following Monday. You should be able to find another bank or credit union that does this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f67397e8aa4882f62733d4d80aaabdf3", "text": "They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "fa70890a59cb856eb8e66c48a3ef4e05", "text": "I was forced to give my bank permission to cover any overdrafts out of my savings accounts. Or pay the bank a fee. After 6 months I discovered they were still taking out a fee, when I confronted them they said it wasn't the overdraft fee it was just an administrative fee. Banks need to burn in hell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5a1da92420013f72c201f2ccd6593c", "text": "\"I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are \"\"real\"\" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become \"\"real\"\") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "300207fb417715762863a5b3d7fa6275", "text": "It's likely that your bill always shows the 24th as the due date. Their system is programmed to maintain that consistency regardless of the day of the week that falls on. When the 24th isn't a business day it is good to error on the side of caution and use the business day prior. It would have accepted using their system with a CC payment on the 24th because that goes through their automated system. I would hazard a guess that because your payment was submitted through your bank and arrived on the 23rd it wasn't credited because a live person would have needed to be there to do it and their live people probably don't work weekends. I do much of my bill paying online and have found it easiest to just build a couple days of fluff into the schedule to avoid problems like this. That said, if you call them and explain the situation it is likely that they will credit the late charge back to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec98223bf7d147a121185b9f03fae31", "text": "\"There's something wrong with your story. The IBAN contiains two check digits, and the method used to compute them guarantees that any single digit error will be caught. So it's impossible that \"\"HSBC screwed up the last digit of my IBAN\"\" because if that were the case, the resulting IBAN would not be valid and be rejected by the computer when it was entered at your bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa076ab8960aa77009c1706bff7e023", "text": "I think they're compounding the interest daily. That means you have to look at the number of days between payments to judge how much the interest charge is. From February 3 to March 2 is 28 days (2012 was a leap year). From March 2 to April 3 is 32 days. That's an increase of about 14% in number of days between payments, which accounts reasonably well to the ~$18 difference in interest charge. Daily compounding also explains the minor fluctuations in the other interest charges. I think if you compute interest/day for each month, you'll find that it is, indeed, decreasing over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52723561ae6945cbce68bd27b38fb019", "text": "It allows companies a time after which they can count the vouchers as part of profit in order to balance their books and also minimize internal fraud that could happen using the vouchers. If they didn't have an expiry date it becomes impossible to reconcile the voucher account as they can still possibly be used in future or may not be used. What do you count that as? If they have an expiry date, when the date passes you can count them as money coming in because they have been paid for though have not been used.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af08a3158906d68c230fb7a3822377d6", "text": "I can think of a few good reasons: A company, especially public, usually wants their fourth-quarter earnings to be the strongest of the year. That ends each fiscal year on a high note for the company and its investors, which helps public sentiment and boosts stock prices. So, travel agencies and airlines usually like ending their year in October or March, in the lull between the summer and winter travel seasons with a large amount of that revenue falling within the company's fiscal Q4. Oil companies sometimes do the same because fuel prices are seasonal for much the same reasons. December is a really bad month to try to close out an entire year's accounting books. Accountants and execs are on vacation for large parts of the month, most retail stores are flooded with revenue (and then contra-revenue as items are returned) that takes time to account at the store level and then filter up to the corporate office, etc etc. It also doesn't tell the whole story for most retail outfits; December sales are usually inflated by purchases that are then returned in January after all the hullaballoo. As a result, a fiscal year end in January or even February keeps the entire season's revenues and expenses in one fiscal year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "109c02e73a5b6ca5cb8fb6950efdd18c", "text": "Your bank does not know about any SEPA Mandat you declare, until it gets in use. When the optionees withdraw money from your Account, they have to authenticate with the given Mandat and at this point your bank knows about that Mandat wich has an expiry date. According to the guidelines of the European Central Bank, your bank is not in duty to bookmark the expiration date. However, I'd assume they do anyway due they are allowed to and it makes things easier. Additional, if you can tell who the optionee is, you can block the withdraw before it happened. In any case, you have to call your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f70265ed3e89fe16f52b76e56bffb18d", "text": "It is because 17th was Friday, 18th-19th were weekends and 20th was a holiday on the Toronto Stock Exchange (Family Day). Just to confirm you could have picked up another stock trading on TMX and observed the price movements.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f1b1c566e68e180bc8d2edd76e7676a", "text": "\"But I have been having a little difficulty to include the expenditure in my monthly budget as the billing cycle is from the 16th to 15th of the next month and my income comes in at the end of the month. Many companies will let you change the statement date if you want, so one way to do this would be to request your bank to have statements due at the end of the month or first of month. You can call and ask, this might resolve your problem entirely. How can I efficiently add the credit card expenditure to my monthly budget? We do this using YNAB, which then means our monthly budget is separate from our actual bank accounts. When we spend, we enter the transaction into YNAB and it's \"\"spent.\"\" Additionally, we just pay whatever our credit card balance is a day before the end of the month so it is at $0 when we do our budget discussion at the end of each month.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be1da953541e9ce40e4598da9a824e4", "text": "\"Debit Cards have a certain processing delay, \"\"lag time\"\", before the transaction from the vendor completes with your bank. In the US it's typically 3 business days but I have seen even a 15 day lag from Panera Bread. I guess in the UK, payment processors have similar processing delays. A business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime, as that's very expensive. Whatever be the lag time, your bank is supposed to cover the payment you promised through your card. Now if you don't have agreements in place (for example, overdraft) with your bank, they will likely have to turn down payments that exceed your available balance. Here is the raw deal: In the end, the responsibility to ensure that your available balance is enough is upon you (and whether you have agreements in place to handle such situations) So what happened is very much legal, a business is not obliged to run its payment processing in realtime and no ethics are at stake. To ensure such things do not happen to me, I used to use a sub-account from which my debit card used to get paid. I have since moved to credit cards as the hassle of not overdrawing was too much (and overdraft fees from banks in the US are disastrous, especially for people who actually need such a facility)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd1a93e5ba8df50304b578f7aee6402", "text": "As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e87339fb33848438b29492d4293e6df9", "text": "Bank runs very complex software to detect suspicious activity - terrorism financing, money laundering, etc. How would a program know that some person's activity is suspicious? It uses a set of rules. That set might be imperfect (that likely was not intended) - there might be some rule that triggers a warning on your account dominating the fact you've been with them for 15 years. So it's highly likely that an imperfect program triggered a warning on your account and the bank employer didn't dismiss it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4585c86d5566947354fbb2697a2c873", "text": "You're knowingly providing a payment method which has insufficient funds to meet the terms of the contract, because you are too lazy to comply with the contract. That's unethical and fraudulent behavior. Will you get in trouble? I don't know. I'd suggest getting acquainted with an electronic calendar that can remind you to do things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdde16f02a47c59d0ba7b213478cdd88", "text": "Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them? Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "91ed2d056035a79ad74f3396e1a59ddc", "text": "When you operate outside of the law, you bear the risks of that decision. When you operate within the law, you have a number of avenues, such as the courts and police to mediate disputes or other problems.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39a4cb00a0a621b7836cb43948f36ad5", "text": "If you get counterfeit money, then you're dealing with the criminal who is going to be punished by the law for doing that. The portion of the total sum that was paid with the counterfeit currency is considered unpaid and you can claim the money from the criminal and sue him, while he's in jail. He'll work hard on those license plates to pay you off. However, making false statements and assisting in a tax evasion scheme compromises your ability to go to the law enforcement in case of any wrongdoing, and then you should worry about the counterfeit money, because the law won't be on your side to help you. And you don't even get anything out of it... Why on earth are you willing to take this risk? Just so you know, it may also be money laundering, which may get you in trouble even more with the law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c84c0c060ff124671df330fe85ec54", "text": "I'd not do business under these terms. A bill of sale needs a signature, right? Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond. I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a6835a11954cc0f37afcd219db475c0", "text": "I'd worry more about falsifying documents of sale. No good reason at all to do that. Detecting counterfeit bills is easy if they're all new bills. Hold them up to the light and look for the watermark and the numbered tape in the bill. Refuse any bad ones.", "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": "f4c9effc9b9bc9ac895d359b72a771fd", "text": "\"Paying tax is a Good Thing. However, warren has made good point and I would like you to consider this other thing: Go into your payees bank with the payee, get the money withdrawn from the teller and take it with you. Unless I am missing something, or the teller handed your payee fake notes, you are \"\"safe\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f66e25bacedbdcc71660c7a8b122bb2e", "text": "The only issue I can see is that the stranger is looking to undervalue their purchase to save money on taxes/registration (if applicable in your state). Buying items with cash such as cars, boats, etc in the used market isn't all that uncommon* - I've done it several times (though not at the 10k mark, more along about half of that). As to the counterfeit issue, there are a couple avenues you can pursue to verify the money is real: *it's the preferred means of payment advocated by some prominent personal financial folks, including Dave Ramsey", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9fcbd976aafe88126a61f50631e4a8e", "text": "I would not do a bill of sale for less, but a legal and safe way to reduce the taxes is to write separate bills for the boat, motor and trailer. The taxes are paid at different rates and will represent to full sale price.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d4acc1a9edb2c7a9f30e843af3b6bbcf", "text": "I wouldn't say this is a lie. Person 2 just made themselves the offer of 38k. If it sells then they were outbid. If it doesn't sell then they're stuck with the asset as if they had bid themselves. They're paying themselves, or they're representing a party that is paying themselves. That balances out to a $0 profit/loss + ownership of the asset. I think something like this would be unethical: Person 1: I'll buy your car for 30k Person 2: Okay Person 3:That's my car!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb31aa53139708b7c3827e7e98a67dc2", "text": "\"As others have noted, US law says that if you have over half the bill, it's worth the full value, under half is worth nothing. I presume if it is very close to half, if even careful measurements show that you have 50.5%, you'll have difficulty cashing it in, precisely because the government and the banking system aren't going to allow themselves to be easily fooled by someone cutting bills in half and then trying to redeem both halves. I've seen several comments on here about how you'd explain to the bank how so many bills were cut in half. What if you just told them the truth? Not the part about killing someone, of course, but tell them that you made a deal, neither of you wanted to bother with complex contracts and having to go to court if the other side didn't pay up, so your buddy cut all the bills in half, etc. As you now have both halves and they clearly have the same serial number, this no real evidence of fraud. Okay, this is technically illegal -- 18 US Code Section 333, \"\"Whoever mutilates, CUTS, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.\"\" But you didn't do it, the other guy did. I presume the point of this law is to say that you can't get a hold of currency belonging to someone else and mutilate it so as to make it worthless. As he's now given you both halves, I doubt anyone would bother to track him down and prosecute him. Just BTW, while checking up on the details of the law, I stumbled across 18 USC 336, which says that it's illegal to write a check for less than $1, with penalties of 6 months in prison. I just got a check from AT&T for 15 cents for one of those class action suits where the lawyers get $100 million and the victims get 15 cents each. Apparently that was illegal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9b2e9c08ae7722a8693d06c547ed4d", "text": "\"The US Customs and Border Protection website states that there is no limit to the amount of currency that can be brought into or taken out of the US. There is no limit on the amount of money that can be taken out of or brought into the United States. However, if a person or persons traveling together and filing a joint declaration (CBP Form 6059-B) have $10,000 or more in currency or negotiable monetary instruments, they must fill out a \"\"Report of International Transportation of Currency and Monetary Instruments\"\" FinCEN 105 (former CF 4790). The CBP site also notes that failure to declare currency and monetary instruments in excess of $10,000 may result in its seizure. Further, the site states that the requirement to report currency on a FinCEN 105 does not apply to imports of gold bullion. However, the legal website The Law Dictionary includes details of how money laundering laws may come into play here : As part of the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, U.S. law enforcement agencies have significantly increased their vigilance over money laundering. To this effect, travelers who carry large amounts of cash without supporting documentation of its legitimate source may be subject to secondary inspections and seizure of funds. In some cases, law enforcement may confiscate cash in excess of $10,000 until supporting documents are produced. So far, I have described the \"\"official\"\" position. However, reading between the lines, I think it is fair to say that in the current climate if you show up at an entry point with a suitcase full of a large amount of cash you would face considerable scrutiny, regardless of any supporting documentation you may present. If you fail to present supporting documentation, then I think your cash would certainly be seized. If you are a US resident, then you would be given the opportunity to obtain satisfactory documentation. If you did present documentation, then I think your cash would be held for as long as it would take to verify the validity of the documentation. Failure to present valid documentation would result in money laundering charges being brought against you and the matter would rest before the courts. If you are not a US resident, then failing to produce supporting documentation would mean your cash being seized and entry into the US would almost certainly be denied. You would then have to deal with the situation from outside of the US. If you did produce supporting documentation, then again I suspect the cash would be held for as long as it takes to verify the validity of the documentation. Whether or not you were allowed to enter the US would depend on what other documentation you possess.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe070ea6ae198fc4f3e308f45d363088", "text": "If you sell counterfeit goods by claiming that they are real, you're no better than people that just straight up steal money without the pretense of 'business' If you sell counterfeit goods and acknowledge that they are counterfeit, you're in ethically better territory... but you're still taking an enormous legal risk that can't possibly be worth your middling profits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289a45ffb14c8b0c60c33176908a22e0", "text": "The reason this sort of question gets asked over and over again is because it's initially difficult to comprehend how you can possibly be scammed if you have no money in your bank account. Perhaps this would make it easier to understand: Someone approaches you in the parking lot of a mall and says, Excuse me, complete stranger, please take this $100 bill and go buy me a pair of $50 shoes at the shoe store. Then go buy whatever you'd like with the rest of the money. Sounds like a good deal, right? The $100 bill is counterfeit. If it were not, the person would buy the shoes themselves. It doesn't get any simpler than that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b271a049ae22fd6bdb2c111d0e1dc938", "text": "\"Here's what's going to happen: At the last minute, he's going to \"\"discover\"\" that for some reason first you must send him $10,000. He'll tell you not to worry, as he's still going to send you $40,000... now $50,000. In fact, he's going to tell you that he'll send you $60,000 and tell you to keep the $10,000 as a \"\"finders fee\"\". Then you will send him, $10,000 and he will walk away with your $10,000. You'll never hear from him again. This is a very common scam. The best way to avoid it is not to tell him you won't do it for IRS reasons. The best thing to do is to stop accepting email from him and (optionally) report him to law enforcement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "456c1399b8629f00c658ad7617c2ead5", "text": "It's got every sign of a scam. Signatures are needed on contracts, so you should only place them on below one. Free money sounds too good to be true. Money evading banks is a typical sign of money laundering; why are they trying to avoid paper trails? The normal way to gift money is to just hand it over or pay it to a bank account. If anything, you sign a tax declaration, but you would send that to the taxman yourself.", "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": "45ffc7734227178f09bd70790a4af370", "text": "Probably more if the interest rate is above 0%. If it's too much, just pay span the payments longer, or get a cheaper car. Nice thing, assuming you keep it bone stock (or even tastefully modded, or even fully modded), you'll have no problem selling to some rich teenager. They hold their value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1db55aaa59f167ad133ccc4f13460d5f", "text": "According to this study put out this year by Judson and Porter, the face value of counterfeit currency relative to the total amount in circulation is about 0.01%: We conclude that the total value of counterfeits in circulation at any moment is on the order of $60 to $80 million, or less than $1 for every $10,000 outstanding, and is highly unlikely to exceed $220 million, or less than $3 for every $10,000 in circulation. Further, we conclude that the incidence of counterfeits is roughly the same inside and outside the United States ... Actual numbers from five years ago suggest about the same: Out of the approximately $759 billion in U.S. dollars held in U.S. currency in the form of banknotes (paper currency) in circulation outside the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve at the end of 2005, the Secret Service reported that about $61 million in counterfeit currency was passed on the public worldwide. Of the counterfeit currency passed, the majority, $56.2 million, was passed in the United States, with the remainder passed abroad. As to why they're checking: Would you want to receive a counterfeit bill? Costco checks my cash when I check out. The guy I got a buggy ride from up in upstate New York checked my bill. It's easy to check certain things on the bill. Why not?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cecaef577bdf6b7e09a8f6da5ee2d11", "text": "The $10,000 mark is not a ceiling in importing cash, but rather a point where an additional declaration needs to be made (Customs Form 4790). At 1 million, I suspect you might be in for a bit of an interview and delay. Here's an explanation of what happens when the declaration isn't made: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/failure-declare-results-seizure-24000-arrest-two", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cec0fbc02f791ad8baf221e975ecc00", "text": "Bank-to-Bank wire transfer would be the best option. Dollar is going up nowadays, so if he brought the money not so long ago he might even earn the cost of the transfers back through the difference of the exchange rates. Re the IRS - they don't care. Same goes to the Israeli Tax Authority. What you and your friend need to show, if asked, is the paper trail. I.e.: if he brought you the $10K in cash - that may be an issue unless he kept all the receipts for getting it. But for such a low amount you can always resort to claiming it is a gift from you, in this case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8e66b2d15e7441db3f126594aa65b42", "text": "In the US, the bank is legally required to report any cash transactions over 10k$ to the government. This normally has no consequences, and you will never hear about it. No need to worry about it. If the amount is very high, or you do it repeatedly, or the government has other (pre-existing) reasons to look at your finances sharply, they might ask you where the money came from and what you did with it, but your explanation is perfectly fine (assuming it is true). The idea is to catch money-launderers that try to get large illegal cash incomes into the banking system. Classic example is the drug lord who makes a million a month in cash from selling drugs, and needs to get this million into the banks (as you can't buy houses or luxury cars or yachts with cash without getting FBI attention right away).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3ccba376cef3f12a8bad4fc3558abc8", "text": "This may sound a little crazy but I would take $5K of that money and buy whiskey with it (Jack Daniel's would be my preference). My guess is that in 5 years that whiskey will be worth more than the $10K you put in the bank. I just can't see how the dollar survives the next 5 years without a major downward adjustment. If I'm wrong then you have a nice party and give whiskey for Christmas gifts. If I'm right at least you will have some savings instead of $15K of useless dollars. Here is my justification for converting your US dollars into tangible assets. Do you really think the money printing will ever stop?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccad5df003233c9e6cdffdce3837c9a4", "text": "\"Speculation is when someone else makes an investment you don't like. The above is tongue in cheek, but is a serious answer. There are several attempts at separating the two, but they turn into moral judgements on the value of a pure \"\"buy and hold\"\" versus any other investment strategy (which is itself doubtful: is shorting an oil stock more \"\"speculation\"\" than buying and holding an alternative energy stock?). Some economists take the other route and just argue that we should remove the moral judgement and celebrate speculation as we celebrate investment.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "c63354cffacbd0dd596f593b412164d3", "text": "\"There are very few circumstances where forming an out of state entity is beneficial, but a website is within these circumstances in certain instances. Businesses with no physical operations do not need to care what jurisdiction they are registered in: your home state, a better united state or non-united state. The \"\"limited liability\"\" does it's job. If you are storing inventory or purchasing offices to compliment your online business, you need to register in the state those are located in. An online business is an example of a business with no physical presence. All states want you to register your LLC in the state that you live in, but this is where you need to read that state's laws. What are the consequences of not registering? There might be none, there might be many. In New York, for example, there are no consequences for not registering (and registering in new york - especially the city - is likely the most expensive in the USA). If your LLC needs to represent itself in court, New York provides retroactive foreign registrations and business licenses. So basically, despite saying that you need to pay over $1000 to form your LLC \"\"or else\"\", the reality is that you get the local limited liability protection in courts whenever you actually need it. Check your local state laws, but more times than not it is analogous to asking a barber if you need a haircut, the representative is always going to say \"\"yes, you do\"\" while the law, and associated case law, reveals that you don't. The federal government doesn't care what state your form an LLC or partnership in. Banks don't care what state you form an LLC or partnership in. The United States post office doesn't care. Making an app? The Apple iTunes store doesn't care. So that covers all the applicable authorities you need to consider. Now just go with the cheapest. In the US alone there are 50 states and several territories, all with their own fee structures, so you just have to do your research. Despite conflicting with another answer, Wyoming is still relevant, because it is cheap and has a mature system and laws around business entity formation. http://www.incorp.com has agents in every state, but there are registered agents everywhere, you can even call the Secretary of State in each state for a list of registered agents. Get an employer ID number yourself after the business entity is formed, it takes less than 5 minutes. All of this is also contingent on how your LLC or partnership distributes funds. If your LLC is not acting like a pass through entity to you and your partner,but instead holding its own profits like a corporation, then again none of this matters. You need to form it within the state you live and do foreign registrations in states where it has any physical presence, as it has becomes its own tax person in those states. This is relevant because you said you were trying to do something with a friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "420bdfb40a54706409ebf250ca7da92c", "text": "\"Generally, you pick the State which you're located at, because you'll have to register your LLC there in any case. In your case that would be either Colorado or Oklahoma - register as domestic in one, as foreign in the other. If your concern is anything other than mere convenience/costs - then you need to talk to a lawyer, however most State LLC laws are fairly alike (and modeled after the \"\"Uniform Limited Liability Company Act\"\". Keep in mind that most of the sites talking about \"\"forming LLC out of state\"\" are either sales sites or targeted to foreigners attempting to form a US company. All the cr@p you hear about forming in Delaware/Nevada/Wyoming - is useless and worthless for someone who's a resident of any of the US States. If you're a US resident - you will always have to register in the State you're located at and do the work at, so if you register elsewhere - you just need to register again in your home State. In your case you already span across States, so you'll have to register in two States as it is - why add the costs of registering in a third one?\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "63978fd23fe40497cf25247eafd5fd6c", "text": "Many enterprise owners inside the United States select to form their enterprise as a Delaware LLC because of the felony advantages from the state’s predictable enterprise friendly legal guidelines. Delaware LLC formation is easy, too — there's no need to visit the kingdom and minimal data is needed to form your LLC in Delaware. The method may be accomplished online; IncNow can assist shape a Delaware LLC in your enterprise in just five mins. You can form an LLC in Delaware without visiting, opening an office, or maintaining a bank account in Delaware.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c91abc4aaaca3434d8bb14a201d03a7", "text": "Making a game is hard enough, focus on that. If/when you start getting close to having something to sell, then if you're serious and want the company to grow into a full time venture, briefly consult with a lawyer and possibly accountant to set this up. It will save you a lot of time researching what you have to do and a lot of headache from potentially doing things wrong. If you want to try to do it on your own, I'd recommend getting a book on starting a business because there is more to know than a single post can cover. You'll probably have to file for a DBA (doing business as) at your city hall in order to be allowed to refer to yourself as the name of your company (otherwise you have to use your personal name). Initiating that will likely initiate annual business taxes in your town in addition to the cheap filing fee. You also want to consider how you will handle trademark (of your business and game) and copyright (of your game). If this is going to grow, you'll have to have contracts written for either employees or for freelancers who might produce assets for you. You may also need to consider writing an EULA for your game, privacy policies, etc. Additionally, you'll likely have to file with your state to collect and send sales tax. You'll also want to meticulously track costs and revenue related to your business. Formally starting a business will likely open you up to property, sales and income tax. For example, where I am, was even taxed on the equipment the business uses (e.g. computers). This is why it makes sense to wait until you're closer to having a product before you try to formally start a business and to consult with professionals on the best way. The type of business you should form will depend on the scope you plan for the company and the amount of time/money you're willing to put in. A sole proprietorship (what you are by default) means there is no difference legally/financially between you as an individual and you as a company. This may be suitable if this is just a hobby, but not if you intend it to grow because that means any lawsuit directed at your company and its money is also directed at you and your money. The differences between an LLC and corporation are more nuanced and involve differences in legal and tax treatment, however, they both shield you from the previously mentioned problem. If you want this to be more than a hobby you should form either an LLC or a corporation. Do some research on the differences and how they might apply to you and in your state.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ea78da0a95244e4bea035ad458a8bed", "text": "\"If you \"\"do business\"\" in a state, then you need to register your business in that state. I suspect that you have a misconception of what it means to \"\"do business\"\" in a state. If you are a 1-man shop, then you very likely are not doing business in any state except the one state where you work. Examples of when you are doing business in a state include having an office in the state or having employees in the state. Merely selling something to a client in that state is NOT enough to be doing business in the state. Each state is different, but unless you are doing something that is, in some sense, close to having an office or an employee in a state, then you have nothing to worry about. For example, if you regularly travel to a state to do work for a client then it is possible that you could be doing business in that state (I have no idea if that would be sufficient in any state). But if you are just working out of your basement running a website, then you are only doing business in your own state.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "363e48c2324326a292452607abe56965", "text": "Short Answer: Go to the bank and ask them about your options for opening a business account. Talk to an attorney about the paperwork and company structure and taxes. Long Answer: You and your buddies jointly own an unincorporated business. This is called a partnership. Yes, there is paperwork involved in doing it properly and the fact that you guys are minors might complicate that paperwork a little bit. In terms of what type of account to open: A business account! Running a business through a personal account (joint or otherwise) is a sure way to get that account shut down. Your bank will want to know the structure of the business, and will require documentation to support that. For a partnership, they will probably want a copy of the partnership agreement. For an LLC, they'll probably want a copy of the filing with Ohio Secretary of State as well as the operating agreement etc. That said, pop into a local bank and ask a business banker directly what you should do. They deal with new businesses all the time, and would probably be best qualified to help you figure out the bank account aspect of it. Regarding business structure... this really impacts a lot more than just the type of bank account to open and how you file your taxes. It is something you guys should really discuss with an attorney. What happens if down the road one of you quits? What happens if you want to bring in a new partner later? What if there is a disagreement about something? These are all things that the attorney can help you address ahead of time - which is a heck of a lot easier (and cheaper) than trying to figure it out later. You're brining in enough that you should certainly be able to buy a couple hours of a lawyer's time. Getting the formation stuff right could save all of you a lot of money and heartache later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1a08ddaabab1b83ced76dfa1bbe930", "text": "Get another LLC. Not that hard and well worth it. I have one business endeavor but have 3 different LLC's to handle the three different aspects of it. That way, should something go wrong with one of the three (and it has in the past), I can kill it without hurting the entire operation. Then start another LLC to take over the aspect of the operation that was killed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb2a95119679e24f2467dcdd08ca9b5b", "text": "Your question mixes up different things. Your LLC business type is determined by how you organize your business at the state level. Separately, you can also elect to be treated in one of several different status for federal taxation. (Often this automatically changes your tax status at the state level too, but you need to check that with your state tax authority.) It is true that once you have an EIN, you can apply to be taxed as a C Corp or S Corp. Whether or not that will result in tax savings will depend on the details of your business. We won't be able to answer that for you. You should get a professional advisor if you need help making that determination.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc6c419b68f051b61e59669a64f83b2c", "text": "I'd have a good look at how much anonymity an LLC offers in your state - as far as I'm aware this varies from state to state. Out here in NV an LLC owner's privacy is supposedly fairly well protected, but in other states, not quite as much. Also keep in mind that while the LLC offers some protection (and I'm a big advocate of this sort of structure if you're taking larger risks that might have a big impact on your overall personal finances), this might not apply to financing. A lot of banks tend to require an LLC's owner to guarantee loans to an LLC once they go over a certain amount or even in general. Do some research in this area because the LLC would be worth less as a protective shield to you if you're on the hook for the full amount of the loans anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21f92446dfd048a11ba3713e97294bf3", "text": "\"No, there are no issues. When you form the corp in DE, you pick a business there to serve as your \"\"agent\"\" (essentially someone who knows to get in contact with you). The \"\"agent\"\" will notify you about taxes and any mail you get, but besides the fee they charge you for being the agent, you should file all the taxes directly with DE (franchise tax is easy to file on the web) instead of going through the agent and paying a surcharge. When your LLC files taxes, you'll do so in DE and then the LLC will issue you a federal and state K1. You'll file taxes where you reside and use the federal K1, but I think you might have to file DE state taxes (unsure about this part, feel free to edit or comment and I'll correct).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49af7aa1976b53feba7306586aa787c1", "text": "You may be able to, depending on what state you're in, but it is going to be 10x more complicated than just forming a new LLC. I don't see an advantage to this approach - if you're imagining it will be cheaper, you are imagining wrong.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c53d1b2149e29a06ade529876aca990", "text": "An LLC is a very flexible company when it comes to taxation. You have three basic tax options: There are other good reasons to create an LLC (mainly to protect your personal assets) so even if you decide that you don't want to deal with the complications of an S-Corp LLC, you should still consider creating a sole proprietorship LLC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d5bec72003ce53ec409a690cb7298b", "text": "\"If the single active member lives in California and works at home, then you likely need to register in CA and pay the annual $800 franchise tax. California is quite aggressive about enforcing registration of LLCs. A foreign LLC needs to register if it is \"\"doing business\"\" in California. Here is a blog post that covers it in some detail. It looks like you meet at least one of the criteria for doing business in California, such as:\"", "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": "362888dad7a489b2fecb115aab213605", "text": "In this case not only that you must register in California (either as domestic, or as foreign if you decided to form elsewhere), you'll also be on the hook for back-taxes if you didn't do it from the start. FTB is notorious for going after out-of-state LLCs that Californians open in other States trying to avoid the $800 fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c4898f903f252efd310e0f149accf0c", "text": "If you have a new company and you want to attract investors, such as venture capitalists and private equity, incorporating in Delaware LLC probably makes sense. There are actually many investors who will only invest in a Delaware Online incorporation, so starting off by creating a Delaware corporation from the beginning may save a lot of money and stress down the road. You can also choose to form an LLC in Delaware, to begin with, then convert it to a C corporation later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04235b74285a44bf3c488e03b1adb7e", "text": "\"Wyoming is a good state for this. It is inexpensive and annual compliance is minimal. Although Delaware has the best advertising campaign, so people know about it, the reality is that there are over 50 states/jurisdictions in the United States with their own competitive incorporation laws to attract investment (as well as their own legislative bodies that change those laws), so you just have to read the laws to find a state that is favorable for you. What I mean is that whatever Delaware does to get in the news about its easy business laws, has been mimicked and done even better by other states by this point in time. And regarding Delaware's Chancery Court, all other states in the union can also lean on Delaware case law, so this perk is not unique to Delaware. Wyoming is cheaper than Delaware for nominal presence in the United States, requires less information then Delaware, and is also tax free. A \"\"registered agent\"\" can get you set up and you can find one to help you with the address dilemma. This should only cost $99 - $200 over the state fees. An LLC does not need to have an address in the United States, but many registered agents will let you use their address, just ask. Many kinds of businesses still require a bank account for domestic and global trade. Many don't require any financial intermediary any more to receive payments. But if you do need this, then opening a bank account in the United States will be more difficult. Again, the registered agent or lawyer can get a Tax Identification Number for you from the IRS, and this will be necessary to open a US bank account. But it is more likely that you will need an employee or nominee director in the United States to go in person to a bank and open an account. This person needs to be mentioned in the Operating Agreement or other official form on the incorporation documents. They will simply walk into a bank with your articles of incorporation and operating agreement showing that they are authorized to act on behalf of the entity and open a bank account. They then resign, and this is a private document between the LLC and the employee. But you will be able to receive and accept payments and access the global financial system now. A lot of multinational entities set up subsidiaries in a number of countries this way.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "7b138186eaa370f17d473b616b4c8885", "text": "If bank B has a transfer limit set, you bet that there is a nice reason for that. Either risk of fraud, liability, client preferences, profiling, credit scoring, etc, etc. For a bank, the cost of denying something [1] is way lower than the potential damages and liabilities of allowing something to go through. Regarding your concerns for the ACH, here is the summarized transaction walkthrough source: An Originator– whether that’s an individual, a corporation or another entity– initiates either a Direct Deposit or Direct Payment transaction using the ACH Network. ACH transactions can be either debit or credit payments and commonly include Direct Deposit of payroll, government and Social Security benefits, mortgage and bill payments, online banking payments, person-to-person (P2P) and business-to-business (B2B) payments, to name a few. Instead of using paper checks, ACH entries are entered and transmitted electronically, making transactions quicker, safer and easier. The Originating Depository Financial institution (ODFI) enters the ACH entry at the request of the Originator. The ODFI aggregates payments from customers and transmits them in batches at regular, predetermined intervals to an ACH Operator. ACH Operators (two central clearing facilities: The Federal Reserve or The Clearing House) receive batches of ACH entries from the ODFI. The ACH transactions are sorted and made available by the ACH Operator to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI). The Receiver’s account is debited or credited by the RDFI, according to the type of ACH entry. Individuals, businesses and other entities can all be Receivers. Each ACH credit transaction settles in one to two business days, and each debit transaction settles in just one business day, as per the Rules. Take heed of this like: The Originator initiates a direct deposit/payment transaction. In your scenario, the originator would be B. But since the transaction amount is higher than the limit, B would not even initiate the ACH transaction. The request would be denied. So the transaction would look like this: [1] Usually this cost comes down to just the processing costs of the denied transaction (and it is rather fail-fast like). For the other parties involved it may have additional costs (missed deadlines, penalties for not fulfilling an obligation, fines, etc), but for the bank that is irrelevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b23ff02a9ae239a450ff9a158fb4b4b4", "text": "Or at least I saw it do so with Bank of America.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "76bc67fb64cb88a385b240a90e7935ac", "text": "I'd say it's a limitation of your bank. Every bank I've ever used had instant transfers between accounts at the same bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1c3f6fb7361b508b4af80dc2e022a07", "text": "\"After this happened the second time, I wonder if there could be a \"\"catch\"\" on this. No I mean, what is my bank's real motivation for allowing me to spend more money. Credit card companies make money in a few ways. By giving you a higher limit the credit card company hopes you will spend more on the card. This immediately gets them more merchant fees and if they are lucky means you will have to carry the balance for a while earning them interest. If they get really lucky you will miss a payment or two earning them some fees. Of course if they let you borrow too much you might never pay it back. So the credit limit is a balancing act. Letting you borrow more money gives them the potential to make more money but also the potential to lose more money. As you build up a history of paying as agreed they feel comfortable lending you more money.\"", "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": "25acfc12627b8bc956a648b3eb673eb5", "text": "So this method makes sense and is reasonable and possible. The money multiplier effect ends up capped by the fact that the bank can only lend a percent of its 'cash'. My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. If the bank lends 900%, it has created this money from nothing, which by itself isn't different that the bank loaning 90% and keeping 10%. The issue comes because the next bank who gets that money deposited will treat that amount as cash as well, so they loan 900% of the 900%. And so on and so forth. How does the system prevent this from happening?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4f61b877d8a4b2a47ea5f22cfe2168", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2e0b3360d9040b962450b64262b6f04", "text": "You may still get an exception hold on the transfer if all of the named account holders on the checking and savings do not match. In my time in banking such an internal hold was exceedingly rare but did occur if other red flags were present. Usually a hold is not an issue when transferring to savings. Further, regardless of the factors above, your institution may require you to complete the transfer with a teller rather than digitally, but that's the institution's choice. Side note about large transfers: When you're doing an internal transfer of $100,000.00 or more, even if named account holders match, some banks' back-end systems will only process this amount in one day as a wire. If so, they will likely waive the wire fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "651f98220897b2a34830fade5ce229dc", "text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "246426eb7dd8792a0944eef30d1d2258", "text": "There is nothing to worry about. There is absolutely nothing unusual about moving money between your own accounts, even if they are in separate financial institutions. I moved $200,000 when I was getting ready to by my house; I have moved similar sized chunks for other purposes. A large transfer may get some attention to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal with the money and aren't being scammed... but if the transaction is legitimate, that attention is harmless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d572b9345892ac7846a98e286c53a59", "text": "In addition to @mhoran_psprep answer, and inspired by @wayne's comment. If the bank won't let you block automatic transfers between accounts, drop the bank like a hot potato They've utterly failed basic account security principles, and shouldn't be trusted with anyone's money. It's not the bank's money, and you're the only one that can authorize any kind of transfer out. I limit possible losses through debit and credit cards very simply. I keep only a small amount on each (~$500), and manually transfer more on an as needed basis. Because there is no automatic transfers to these cards, I can't lose everything in the checking account, even temporarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b213dd622dfb92ca43339dad0d9a256", "text": "\"Your bank is maintaining different states for transactions, and changing the state depending on real-world events and the passage of time. withdraw €100 from my bank account on 30 September […] my bank does not process the transaction until 2 October. The bank probably have that transaction marked as “pending” on 30 September, and “cleared” on 2 October. transfer €100 from Bank A to Bank B, Bank A's statement dates the transaction on 20 September, but Bank B dates it as coming in on 22 September. Similarly, bank A will have the transaction marked as “pending” initially. Bank B won't have a corresponding transaction at all, until later; they'll have it “pending” too, until they confirm the transfer. Then (probably at different times from each other) the banks will each mark the corresponding transactions “cleared”. The bookkeeping software that I use doesn't seem to allow for this \"\"transfer time\"\" between accounts. When I enter a transfer from one account to another, they both have to have the same date. You may want to learn about different bases of accounting. The simpler option is “cash-based” accounting. The simplification comes from assuming transactions take no time to transfer from one account to another, and are instantly available after that. Your book-keeping software probably books using this simpler basis for your personal finances. The more complex “accrual-based” accounting tracks each individual transaction through multiple states – “pending”, “transfer”, “cleared”, etc. – with state changes at different times – time of trade, time of settlement, etc. – to more accurately reflect the real world agreements between parties, and different availability of the money to each party. So if your book-keeping program uses “cash basis”, you'll need to pick which inaccuracy you want: book the transfer when you did it, or book the transfer when the money is available at the other end.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e27e77f9b48e65c7e51b05e7102406c", "text": "Here's a point in favor of central banks: With a central bank in the middle making sure payments clear, transactions can happen with near perfect trust. When a bank has a daylight overdraft, the Fed covers it. When a bank needs overnight funding, the Fed provides it. If a bank needs vault cash, a truck shows up from the Fed. Without this, no one could ever be entirely confident the other party was money-good. With a volume of transactions that can amount to annual GDP in as little as six days, this level of trust is critical to a smoothly functioning system of payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0b948d3ba6bb0db71fe1c892cbab69d", "text": "There are restrictions on transferring money OUT OF Egypt (although less tight than previously: http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326839 ) but there aren't any such restrictions on sending money INTO Egypt. If you go to HSBC's retail UK banking pages and locate the page for International Money Transfers, http://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/international-money-transfer you can see that you can transfer up to £50,000 per day into Egypt via online banking, £10,000 via telephone banking, or unlimited by visiting the branch. I'm not sure exactly what question you asked them or exactly what they said to you in response, but it sounds like there was some misunderstanding along the way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f62569be9b7c332637d6eeed835ddb2", "text": "It depends on the bank and network. Banks are to provide outgoing data at the certain time for the processing by the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve system, for ACH), which then distributes incoming data back to the banks. All this has to be done between the closing of the business day and the opening of the next one. If the transaction hasn't completed the full path during that time - it will wait at the position it was stuck at until the next cycle - next night. That's why sometimes ACH transactions take more than 1 day to complete (if, for example, multiple Fed banks have to be involved).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a84abc29f80cea29cc9d9ff10b3d315d", "text": "\"Like the old American Express commercial: \"\"no preset spending limit\"\". It is really up to the bank(s) in question how big a cheque they are willing to honour. A larger amount would likely be held longer by a receiving institution to ensure that it cleared properly, but nothing written in law (in Canada, that I am aware of).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "945e21f1afc1b42537ad6cdeec998eb5", "text": "The direct debit is an authority to withdraw money from your account. Depending on how it was set up it may limit how much may be withdrawn, how often and for how long. I haven't seen a direct debit agreement that limits the total that may be withdrawn, but they may exist. A reputable creditor will stop taking your money when they're supposed to, which would be when the loan is paid off.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6c31cc642447b46b462ffbae99e40bcf", "text": "\"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you. Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via \"\"http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp\"\" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2fe5a2fd10180b48792906009b272fc", "text": "I am a freelancer based in Europe and I want to tell you: - if you are a freelancer, then you INVOICE your Swizzerland based client The word salary is improper. - So your client will DEDUCE the invoice from its taxes, and NOT pay income tax on top of that invoice. Because invoice = expense. So, ONLY YOU pay income tax in India. Your client pays no tax at all, not in India, not in Swizzerland. As you are a freelancer and not employee, the company has no obligation to pay employer taxes for you. A company has financial benefits from working with a freelancer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "746c2df9ea5a586fc65a71a374c66c25", "text": "I have some more inputs to investigate: India has dual tax avoidance treaty signed with european countries so that NRIs dont pay tax in both countries. Please check if India has some agreement with Swiss Also for freelance job that is delivered from India, u need to make sure where you have to pay taxes as you are still in India so the term NRI will not hold good here. Also, if Swiss company is paying tax there, and you are a freelancer from India(resident in india) how to tax filing /rate etc has to be investigated. Also, can you apply for tax back from swiss( a portion of tax paid can be refunded eg: in Germany) but I dont know if this is true for Freelancers and also for people out side SWISS. Bip", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "735288ea721f87fe49b5c1098226c735", "text": "The finance team from your company should be able to advise you. From what I understand you are Indian Citizen for Tax purposes. Any income you receive globally is taxable in India. In this specific case you are still having a Employee relationship with your employer and as such the place of work does not matter. You are still liable to pay tax in India on the salary. If you are out of India for more than 182 days, you can be considered as Non-Resident from tax point of view. However this clause would not be of any benefit to you as are having a Employee / Employer relationship and being paid in India. Edit: This is only about the India portion of taxes. There maybe a UK protion of it as well, plus legally can you work and your type of Visa in UK may have a bearing on the answer", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccb7e105475667a71ec73c4f44d5de4d", "text": "From tax perspective, any income you earn for services performed while you're in the US is US-sourced. The location of the person paying you is of no consequence. From immigration law perspective, you cannot work for anyone other than your employer as listed on your I-20. So freelancing would be in violation of your visa, again - location of the customer is of no consequence.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad545957f5af34e852059d84dd928377", "text": "\"Finally, I got response from finance center: \"\"It doesn't matter where do you study, what does matter is where you live. So, once you live in Germany, you pay taxes in Germany. And it doesn't matter who you work for.\"\" So, there are two options to pay taxes: it's paid by an employer or an employee: If I would work for Swiss company, I need to show how much money I make every month (or year) to Finance Center.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6d8246a6d2c372099e8140b3683674e", "text": "Business Apprentice is internship. That is not what is applicable for you. You're a visiting professor/researcher, which falls under Article 22, so you don't get the standard deduction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7beb296a45b2f6718fda648042db802f", "text": "\"Your comment to James is telling and can help us lead you in the right direction: My work and lifestyle will be the same either way, as I said. This is all about how it goes \"\"on the books.\"\"    [emphasis mine] As an independent consultant myself, when I hear something like \"\"the work will be the same either way\"\", I think: \"\"Here thar be dragons!\"\". Let me explain: If you go the independent contractor route, then you better act like one. The IRS (and the CRA, for Canadians) doesn't take lightly to people claiming to be independent contractors when they operate in fact like employees. Since you're not going to be behaving any different whether you are an employee or a contractor, (and assuming you'll be acting more like an employee, i.e. exclusive, etc.), then the IRS may later make a determination that you are in fact an employee, even if you choose to go \"\"on the books\"\" as an independent contractor. If that happens, then you may find yourself retroactively denied many tax benefits you'd have claimed; and owe penalties and interest too. Furthermore, your employer may be liable for additional withholding taxes, benefits, etc. after such a finding. So for those reasons, you should consider being an employee. You will avoid the potential headache I outlined above, as well as the additional paperwork etc. of being a contractor. If on the other hand you had said you wanted to maintain some flexibility to moonlight with other clients, build your own product on the side, choose what projects you work on (or don't), maybe hire subcontractors, etc. then I'd have supported the independent contractor idea. But, just on the basis of the tax characteristics only I'd say forget about it. On the financial side, I can tell you that I wouldn't have become a consultant if not for the ability to make more money in gross terms (i.e. before tax and expenses.) That is: your top line revenues ought to be higher in order to be able to offset many of the additional expenses you'd incur as an independent. IMHO, the tax benefits alone wouldn't make up for the difference. One final thing to look at is Form SS-8 mentioned at the IRS link below. If you're not sure what status to choose, the IRS can actually help you. But be prepared to wait... and wait... :-/ Additional Resources:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "387bb2fa0bd5f4c5f4e5caa86fb1ba18", "text": "Chiming with my experience, because I hate generalizations of an entire country. I'm Indian, born and raised, but came to the US to do my undergrad/uni and now work out of the US. I had a lot of the same qualms about working with my Indian peers, but I've found that it also depends on the support structure that companies offer. High turnover is definitely an issue, but that seems to be because companies focus more on hiring and less on retention (offering signing bonuses but then little to no continued progress, limited growth opportunities, rigid hierarchy, terrible working hours). I have someone who reports to me in India now and it's an experiment on how to better engage them, and it's worked better. Turns out you can expect more when you also treat them like an American employee while expecting american results. There are definitely still cultural clashes in work ethic etc. but they can be overcome if you get people to stick around long enough. Of course, this is anecdotal but that's my two cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85f69d0d7ed4f8472a4e2960b0e4213f", "text": "As per Wikipedia of right now, here are unemployment figures for Switzerland and surrounding countries: Liechtenstein, unfortunately, does not have a large job market, given its total population of about 37,000 people. And note that the German figure of 4.5% is the lowest it has been for decades - I'd expect this number to go up and the Swiss one to stay constant. Bottom line: you will have an easier time finding a job in Switzerland. (Plus all the other good points the other answers raised: great mountains, great chocolate, low taxes, clean streets etc.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ed0a848a2c8d9004ffc9aff4fbc6cdc", "text": "\"Nope... as mentioned elsewhere, I hired a lawyer, and my employer absolutely does not own any of my work. I've been extremely careful about that. This is much more common as a developer working for a \"\"for-profit\"\" entity particularly in the US. I work for a government body and not in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "296b41f13f2bae4227c9fa310b1b5cba", "text": "Prior to his current job role, Mr. Raphael Lilla operated as the Director, Group and Business Control at Hinduja Bank. Currently, he is working as an Executive Director of SBC Group AG, Switzerland and as Managing Director of Swiss Bullion Company International LLC, Dubai.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47bdbf1890afe60c5bb5ffc4a785060f", "text": "\"You do not need to inform your employer of your additional activity, but it is your responsibility not to work for more than 48 hours per week as long as you are an employee. So if you are working 38 hours for your employer, you may not work for yourself for more than 10 hours. It is, however, not so easy in practice to draw the line between work and a hobby, as long as you are not being paid by the hour. The main reason to present your employer with an addition to your work contract is to make it legally very clear that he holds no intentions to claim copyright to your work. He may attempt to do something funky like claim your home computer is, in fact, a work computer because you used it once a month to work from home, and your work contract may contain a paragraph that all work performed on a work computer results in copyright ownership for your employer. I have no idea how likely this is in practice, but this is the reason I know is commonly given as legal advice to have a contract. So the normal contract you present your employer with says: In order to earn user contribution money from a website, you need to register as a sole proprietor (Gewerbeanmeldung) and pay trade tax (Gewerbesteuer) and sales tax (Umsatzsteuer, alternatively you claim small trade exception, Kleingewerbe), which also makes a tax return mandatory. I would guess, however, (and this is not legal advice in any way, just my guess), that a couple of contributions towards server cost in a strictly non-profit endeavor is not commercial (\"\"gewerblich\"\") at all but private, in the same way that you may write an invoice to someone you sold your old bike to, or a kid may get paid to mow someone's lawn. Based on that guess, my non-legal-advice recommendation is to take the contributions and do nothing else, as long as the amount is nowhere near breaking even if you count your work input.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a6c19087f1431dd9a7ab61dc764a70a", "text": "\"Your own site/business. I’m in freelancing and internet business for 15 years, 20 years IT experience. Currently i use freelance websites for cheap Asian employees, very seldom for EU/USA employees, and if only if local competition is heavily out-pricing qualified staff. Till I went \"\"limited\"\" i.e., founded a limited corporation I was jobbing as freelancer and sole proprietor, both with limited success due to the strong Asian competition i myself currently hire. The point where freelancing got \"\"not sustainable\"\" as primary income was 2006 for me, don’t want to get into detail but every freelancer who was active back then knows what I mean, it was like whole India got internet. If you have absolutely no references, do it for the references a limited time and see the fee you pay as service for you to get references, then start your own web identity, either as freelancer or as corporation. Make sure you take your very satisfied customers with you. Every \"\"very satisfied\"\" customer in your contact list means 10 new customers which mean 2 new customers which mean 0.2 new customers and so on. Honestly, this info is solely based on experience of this niche fro ma European citizen perspective, if you’re based anywhere else the situation might be totally different.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e65985c3ab463e6ad723656aa8e16f82", "text": "\"You can file an LLC yourself in most states, although it might be helpful to use a service if you're not sure what to do to ensure it is correct. I filed my LLC here in Colorado online with the Secretary of State's office, which provided the fill-in-the-blank forms and made it easy. In the U.S., taxation of an LLC is \"\"pass-through\"\", meaning the LLC itself does not have any tax liability. Taxes are based on what you take out of the LLC as distributions to yourself, so you pay personal income tax on that. There are many good books on how to form and then operate an LLC, and I personally like NoLo (link to their web site) because they cater to novices. As for hiring people in India, I can't speak to that, so hopefully someone else can answer that specific topic. As for what you need to know about how to run it, I'll refer back to the NoLo books and web site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3eaacc24784c090d2d5bdb857dcd3a9", "text": "\"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with \"\"guarantees\"\" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say \"\"But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!\"\" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The \"\"bulletproof\"\" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4972d02c5cb0088e316851b3f20b2dee", "text": "Tax is due in India as you offered services from India. So whether the International Client pays via Credit Card, Bank Transfer, Paypal or any other means is not relevant. Even if the International Client pays you in a account outside India; it is still taxable in India.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "068924eb9246321883828a7b0dcc2acc", "text": "\"I'll chime in here with the \"\"don't do it crowd.\"\" I think it's fraught with ugly possibilities. However, you may, for various reasons, decide to say, \"\"to hell with it, we'll make it work.\"\" If that is the case, treat it like a business transaction and not an emotional transaction. Work up a binding contract with your attorney for how the two of you will handle issues such as: Of absolutely critical importance is the bail-out clause: how will you handle it when one person says, \"\"Sayonara.\"\" None of this ensures a smooth road - god knows I wouldn't do it - but it could help protect your sanity and some of your investment down the road. Good luck.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "16ad3228aaa40f39a992b2fcb32a4d4f", "text": "\"A simple way to account debt forgiveness of your receivables is to utilize a \"\"Bad Debt\"\" expense account. Take the following two examples: If you are only forgiving a portion of the principle, another popular term used is Principle Reduction as the expense account.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1725f7ef8a360ad6fb97628888e9c1b1", "text": "\"Here's a blog by a guy who is trying to do this: Personal Loan Portfolio And here's another one: bobharris.com Do a quick search for \"\"prosper loan\"\" or \"\"kiva\"\" on blog search.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8d5c327ce6e719e6a82fda9724475de", "text": "While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "8125e139939bdcfbcaeb83f843bb2452", "text": "employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc786f8d44f69979b0e357f265a9b51", "text": "Personal needs? No bank is going to give you that kind of cash without a real reason, usually with some equity backing it. From your post you say you are a student, so I doubt you even have the income to pay it back. If banks just gave out cash like that people would disappear with it all the time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb9ea76eef68b7af44e872e2f37d6569", "text": "Sorry, but I think you really do need an attorney here. This is the kind of minefield where knowing all the precedents and edge cases can make a huge difference in what you can or can't do, and a misplaced comma can make or break your case. Note that AT BEST you could sell your own interest in the house -- owning the note does not mean owning the property, it only means that they issued the note on the strength of your share of the property. And a half-interest in a single family house has little value outside the family, except to sell it to whoever owns the other half. Which is probably the best answer: Sell your half to your Aunt, if she can afford to buy it. She then gets sole control of the house, and you get the money you seem to need right now, and everyone in the family is much less stressed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfd9f28b5355e5f533b22d0f211b3e57", "text": "Is it inevitably taxed by the government? Which government? Tax treatment of familial loans varies greatly be jurisdiction. What is proper documentation procedure? If you want to get paid back, definitely a lawyer ... each. Is it better to ask several family members to help contribute so each person loans less? Or is it taxed the same? If this is only a tax issue then see above. If it is a means of spreading risk then sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "839709aa6287a3c0bdadf5e399de228d", "text": "I would recommend against loans from family members. But if you decide to go down that path take care of the basics: This is a business decision so treat it like one. I would add that the situation you describe sounds extremely generous to your family member. I'd look at standard loan agreements (ie. in the marketplace) and model your situation more on them - if you do this, even with you paying a premium, you'd never come up with something as generous as what you have described.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37ab19113c26928885755f04ab154a8c", "text": "You will have to write it off as an offset of capital gains or as bad debt against personal income, limited to $3k/ yr. Write off 3k this year, 2k next. Here's the tax code, you'll need to file a form 8949, link below. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc450/tc453 So, this requires that it is a loan, acknowledged by both you and the borrower, with terms of repayment and stated interest, as well as wording for late payments and time for delinquency. The loan document doesn't have to be fancy, but it must show a reasonable intention of repayment to distinguish it from a gift. Then send out a 1099c for cancellation of debt. This is a starting point, it's a good idea to run everything by your tax processional to make sure you're meeting the requirements for bad debt with your contact and payment communication.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32cef36b284aa6cef14527c27cb8bca0", "text": "\"The standard double-entry approach would just be to create a Liability account for the loan, and then make a transfer from that account to your Asset (Savings) account when the loan proceeds are distributed to you. After that point, the loan doesn't \"\"belong\"\" to your Savings account in any way. Each account and transaction is tracked separately. So, you might for instance pay that loan back with a transfer from your Checking account, even though the initial disbursement arrived into your Savings account. In order to see how much of a loan you have remaining, you need to look at the loan's Liability account to see what transactions occurred in it and what its remaining balance is. It sounds like what you're really trying to accomplish is the idea of \"\"earmarking\"\" or \"\"putting into an envelope\"\" certain assets for certain purposes. This kind of budgeting isn't really something that Gnucash excels at. It does have some budget features, but there's more about being able to see how actual expenses are to expected expenses for a reporting period, not about being able to ask \"\"How much 'discretionary' assets do I have left before I start hitting my 'emergency fund'\"\". The closest you get is splitting up your asset accounts into subaccounts as you suggest, in which case you can \"\"allocate\"\" funds for your specific purposes and make transfers between them as needed. That can work well enough depending on your exact goals, though it can sometimes make it a little trickier to reconcile with your actual bank statements. But there's not really an accounting reason to associate the \"\"emergency fund\"\" portion of your assets with the remaining balance of your loan; though there's nothing stopping you from doing so if that's what you're trying to do. Accounting answers questions like \"\"How much have I spent on X in the past?\"\" and \"\"How much do I own right now?\"\". If you want to ask \"\"How much am I allowed to spend on X right now?\"\" or \"\"Am I likely to run out of money soon?\"\", you may want a budgeting tool rather than an accounting tool.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11c9b3d0363b550de540aa34f698e3b1", "text": "You haven't mentioned the country. As a general premise, you own them money and the fact that the account was closed has no bearing on the fact that you own them money. My suggestion would be pay them off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a44496c2bd1e2232797a0e4fd167338", "text": "\"Definitely consult a lawyer. Mortgages are highly regulated now, and regardless of how familiar borrower & lender are, the standard contract will be extremely long. (at least in the US) There are no \"\"friends and/or family\"\" exceptions. If the contract does not conform to regulations, it may be invalid, and all the money you lent could simply evaporate since it was the borrower who actually bought the house, and it's the loan contract that's rendered null & void; in that case, it may be better to simply donate the money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1", "text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "c3ee2200952b082f62092d65b776999e", "text": "It's a kook movie made by folks who combine conspiracy quackery with repackaged socialism. If you're into socialist theory, read Marx or some other intellectual socialist. That said, growth and efficiency are not the same thing. If I'm running a lemonade stand, I can grow by hiring more people at $X/hr or increase efficiency by purchasing an electric juicer and hiring fewer people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5da547d40bc58ce938dde6001001f3f8", "text": "Growth and efficiency can occur independently of each other. For instance, if an economy consists of one inefficient business and then a second more efficient business opens to compete agains the first the overall efficiency increases while the economy grows. New industries tend to be inefficient at the beginning (since initiation is more important than optimisation) and then become more efficient over time. Agriculture is an amazingly efficient business if you consider how many people now produce the amount of food we consume in comparison to only 100 years ago. Plus, efficiency is not only about producing extra widgets. You could produce the same number of widgets for lower cost. Outsourcing to China (taking advantage of their lower cost of production) increases the efficiency of the US economy, but also increases the efficiency of the Chinese economy (since extra work is created producing more things). Lower costs in the US lead to increased investment in other production. Increased production in China leads to the rising wages there. Growth can be achieved in both places for very different reasons. So, no, growth doesn't have to come about through less efficiency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "460d85a7c8ff70a578985dbad0479ede", "text": "A growing economy should become more efficient because of increased opportunity for division of labor: specialization. External regulation or monetary policy external to the free market can cause parts of the economy to grow in response to said regulations. This creates inefficiencies that are wrung out of the economy after the policies reverse. A couple of examples: Tinkering with the economy causes the inefficiencies.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ec7ef0fd83a1c0b24e84f61e5576178f", "text": "I don't understand your question. What the article is talking about is a bit more than circulating money indiscriminately. It is saying that by circulating more of it to rich and less to the poor will result in less growth overall, which I think we can all agree is a bad thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "636c82034cad8c30b43c9f13cad4e238", "text": "\"The U.S. economy has grown at just under 3% a year after inflation over the past 50 years. (Some of this occurred to \"\"private\"\" companies that are not listed on the stock market, or before they were listed.) The stock market returns averaged 7.14% a year, \"\"gross,\"\" but when you subtract the 4.67% inflation, the \"\"net\"\" number is 2.47% a year. That gain corresponds closely to the \"\"just under 3% a year\"\" GDP growth during that time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae970d86fb613a52eccde066988c16a8", "text": "that was not the argument posited, and it would be superfluous if it were. it does nothing to challenge hanauers argument, as hanauer acknowledges this tenet which further informs his broader view that this phenomenon results in the absence of economic growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17361070131059b6ba867cba09f1d51b", "text": "The President, Democrat or Republican, has very little effect on the growth or performance of an economy. The Federal Reserve has the largest impact, followed by Congress. Interestingly, if US government spending was not frozen in 2010, the US would have grown closer to the historical average of 3%. Government spending, which is controlled by Congress, brought down GDP growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "612503d4c8d6c15915c1625fbdbd65ce", "text": "OMG. A recession is coming. Wait...hasn't that been a true statement since forever? No shit a recession is coming. That's like saying a thunderstorm is coming. This is a natural part of economics. Recessions are a necessary part of growth, almost like growing pains. Now the real question is 'when will the recession happen.' However nobody truly knows that, so it's better to spend your efforts making sure you're prepared for when a recession occurs as opposed to worrying about when that will happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e0a3ac799b763902f5b4ec1ae24189f", "text": "we have massive numbers of people out of work and our infrastructure is crumbling. We put people to work just like we did in the 30's; our infrastructure gets fixed and so does our economy. I totally agree that for an economy to grow we have to make more stuff. We're not making the stuff now because people cannot afford to purchase it. If given funds, people would purchase stuff, and stuff would get made. This got us out of them great depression and has kept Scandinavia strong, and even got Iceland out of it's terrible brush with Libertarianism. Brazil is becoming a first world powerhouse by this sort of redistribution. Redistributing money down the ladder has the benefit of working. Austerity leads to Greece. And Spain. And Portugal. And Ireland. But not Germany, because they deficit-spent their way out of their recession.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "801125f5adf1109ba87736274e2082da", "text": "\"Wealth is not distributed equally in any economy. And, even if it were, differentiation between people would lead to different interests being expressed in different ways. As people either attempt to earn more (to improve their situation) or different people express those interests in different ways (saving money to go on a skiing holiday, or to put a downpayment on a house) people invite new products and services to be created to satisfy those demands. In addition, there is the problem of uncertainty. People save money today to cope with uncertainty tomorrow (healthcare, pensions, education, etc.). Those savings don't remain idle, but are lent to others who believe that they can make a return through investing in new businesses or ideas. The point being that any dynamic economy will experience change in the amount of goods available to the people within that economy. From an economic perspective \"\"growth\"\" is just another permutation. From a political perspective, \"\"growth\"\" implies that people are getting wealthier. If that growth is asymmetrically distributed (e.g. the poor don't experience it and the middle classes don't feel they get enough of it) then that is a problem for politicians. The emerging markets of the world are trying to raise millions of people out of poverty. Growth is a way of measuring how quickly they are achieving that end. Growth, in and of itself, is meaningless. There are some people who believe that \"\"we\"\" (as some proxy of society) have enough stuff and growth is unnecessary but that implies that everyone is satisfied. For as long as some people wish to have more wealth/stuff, and have the means to achieve this, there will be growth. And for as long as there is uncertainty growth will vary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc669c07c7a6d3fd0cfcb328b92be3ba", "text": "\"I'm not defending Faber, but from an statistical point your logic is terrible. It's a lot easier to go from 2 to 4 than it is from 200 to 400 - so any undeveloped third-world country should be growing a **lot** faster than places with existing stable economies. And to put \"\"fastest growing\"\" into context, it's 8.5%, which isn't even as big as I was expecting considering the US is growing at 3% and has a much larger base value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a15e4181d6f3346f1a74af9ceb01fd59", "text": "No, it doesn't. That would be true if somehow incomes were conserved, but they aren't. What's much more likely is that income growth becomes muted in the first world with the vast majority of income growth happening in developing economies. So, it doesn't require losing income, but it will mean constrained income growth in developed countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499", "text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eea1266177b47feac63c58f7fe87a70", "text": "Today’s up and coming tech companies are taking value from the existing companies so I believe there can be a net loss. Also, efficiency gains are going to a smaller portion of the population, and if they don’t increase their spending to make up for the decrease in the spending of those who are falling behind, then that might cause a decrease in economic activity. Of course, there are a lot more up and coming people in the word too, so they could very well outnumber those in the US/Western Europe regions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c453261c2cf0ac5964870d3679062958", "text": "Some innovations increase productivity quite a bit. So in the long run, innovations is a main driver or economical growth. And innovation is fueled by, indeed, debt. The straight curve in the video, the economical growth, should not be a straight line, but a upwardly curved one. It cannot go down because innovations in productivity are not lost (I challenge you for an example contradicting this. Normally, every upward cycle should create an extra increase in productivity. The government also plays a role in stimulating innovation. I loved this video btw.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc8f5acc6acb7c172f0f6631a96b3aa", "text": "You do know that since the shale gas boom started the cost of energy declined significantly, don't you? Your theory is a bit simplistic and had more than a few holes. GDP growth is not that contingent on energy prices. How do you factor in increasing fuel efficiency in your theory?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55f5cae08ad8656a8f742e86aee56cf7", "text": "While there could be other factors, the chart at the top made me not want to read the article... it's a gain of less than 0.1% in a year in a growing economy. Keep this up and they'll be screwed by 2040.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "362077d02a7056589fbe1c25e18915f3", "text": "\"Check out Irwin Schiff's \"\"How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't\"\". It explains how economy's work using a comic format, explaining investment, savings, banking, gov't, taxation,etc, although you may need to be at least 10 to understand some of the concepts. :)\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9b266e4a1a7e3770699243362ffe6040", "text": "If you read the fine print in the Pricing & Terms section of that card, you'll see: By becoming a Visa Business Card cardmember, you agree that the card is being used only for business purposes and that the card is being issued to a public or private company including a sole proprietor or employees or contractors of an organization. So that card is a Chase-branded Visa card, and should be accepted anywhere other Visa cards are. Credit cards are normally either MasterCard or Visa, although many of them make that rather inconspicuous. The only major exceptions I know of are American Express and Discover. (And store cards that are only good at one particular store.)", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "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": "71a0b8631383a8b1177ba145a64901c7", "text": "Most corporate policies strictly prohibit the card's use for personal use, even if the intent is to re-pay in full, on or before the due date. I'm certain it has something to do with limitation of liability, i.e. the monetary risk the company is willing to put itself at, in order to offer a corporate card program. In my experience, AMEX Corporate Card Services is the most widely-used card, and in my experience, it is your employer that determines and administers the policy that outlines the card's appropriate use, not the credit card provider, so you're best to check with your employer for a definitive answer to this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4149853e53d6d1519fa4d4372b8cada7", "text": "As a previous employee at Target the cashier's were all doing things wrong...you cannot buy AMEX or Visa prepaid cards with target giftcards or you get in big shit. You are also not supposed to sell giftcards for giftcards. This should all pop up automatically when the cashier rings it up...so i'm confused.", "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": "240af245a23939104871e35102887363", "text": "Update: Here is a Google Docs spreadsheet that is actively maintained and editable. It contains a list of EMV credit cards. With a few exceptions (UN, existing BMO Diners Club cardholders, employees of the state of North Carolina), it still looks like the Travelex card is the best option for most people. Original answer: The premise of the question may now be outdated. I have found internet articles claiming 4 US banks will now issue Chip and PIN cards. Specifically: The Chase link is for their British Airways card, which multiple sources say is really Chip and Signature (leaving it there so no one else suggests it). The Citi link is to specific chip and PIN information. I could not find specific information for the other two. I have a question into my bank (US Bank) and will update when they get back to me. In looking into this, some of the chip and PIN links I followed ended up being chip and signature, so as always, be careful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7bea73bdc586c06b219ff1563f511dc", "text": "Read the fine print and you will be fine. The big caveat is that if you miss a payment for any reason, you will be in default as far as the promotional financing is concerned and will typically owe ALL of the accrued interest, which is usually computed at 20-25% per year. Personally, I use these sorts of offers all of the time at places like Home Depot for stuff that doesn't generally need warranty service. (Wood, tools, etc) Usually I pay the thing off over time as CDs mature. If I'm buying a TV, computer, etc. I always use my AMEX, because I get an extra year of warranty service and points for free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "5964e038b78de817efa3fe3d15bc7e0b", "text": "You can use the debit card for practically any purchase that you make. You'll have to take the usual precautions and then a few additional ones. Cards make your life really easy and convenient with some basic precautions. All the best for your travel and stay in the USA. My two cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "fd4e136401631719b477bcecbdb36789", "text": "\"Yes and No. There's always a \"\"fee\"\". The difference in credit vs debit usually determines how much that fee is and how it's paid. Each vendor who accepts the major credit card is under contract to pay for equipment and meet certain standards. The same is true for debt card transactions. How much the \"\"fee\"\" is can vary based on the contract the vendor has with MasterCard/Visa/AMEX. But in general most debt transactions go back to the bank who distributed the card.\"", "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": "58642a4c87aeea6dc86c379b8c4a7796", "text": "You will have to read your credit card's terms and conditions to determine exactly how this is handled for your card, but for my Discover this is handled as a purchase (at the Purchase APR), not as an advance. The benefits description is specific: Get cash where you shop the most They have a long list of stores (mostly grocery stores) that participate. Your credit card will have a similar page and similar list.", "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": "62d5c32ad49fc3189ebd8b98819ce212", "text": "Your relative in the US could buy a pre-paid Visa (aka Visa gift card) and give you the numbers on that to pay. They're available for purchase at many grocery/convenience stores. In most (all??) cases there'll be a fee of a several dollars charged in addition to the face value of the card. The biggest headache I can think of would be that pre-paid cards are generally only available in $25/50/100 increments; unless the current SAT price matches one of the standard increments they'll have to buy the next card size up and then get the remaining money off it in a separate transaction. A grocery store would be one of the easier places for your relative to do this because cashiers there are used to splitting transactions across multiple payment sources (something not true at most other types of business) due to regularly processing transactions partially paid for via welfare benefits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad261ad87455c52975dbca247f47df0e", "text": "I think the question relates to the discussion here: http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2010/10/05/19449/ It was always the case that merchants could discount purchases made with cash. What wasn't allowed is allowing the merchant to charge extra for credit card transactions (presumably to cover the fees the merchants pay). These fees usually carry a flat fee per transaction, plus around 2% of the purchase price. What also wasn't allowed was them to refuse any credit transactions. People could charge a pack of gum, even if the fees put that transaction in the red. What's allowed according to this new development is different levels of discounting for different credit cards. Somewhat related to this discussion is another development that happened this summer: merchants now have the ability to refuse credit card transactions of less than $10. Here's my feeling on all of this. I think we'll see merchants imposing minimum credit transaction amounts before we see them monkeying at the 1-2% level on pricing for different types of credit cards. My feeling is that they'd be wise not to change anything, even though they can. Refusing transactions (or charging more for others) is going to come as a unpleasant shock to enough people that they may take their business elsewhere.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "f6565dd0aa33decf3ce5cdb619b40921", "text": "Another suggestion I heard on the radio was to give the child the difference between the name brand they want, and the store brand they settle on. Then that money can be accumulated as savings. Saving money is as important a feature of the family economy as earning money. Be careful with what you have a child do for reward vs what you have them do as a responsibility. Don't set a dangerous precedent that certain work does not need to be done unless compensation is on the table. You might have a child who relies on external motivations only to do things, which can make school work and future employment hard. I would instead have my child do yard work, but while doing it explain opportunity costs of doing the work yourself vs hiring out. I would show my kid how saving money earns interest, and how that is essentially free money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80a7baf28f607ad43f866848dbc4e9dd", "text": "Similar to the lawn care you mentioned: if you have space, you could have the kids create a mini-farmstand. They could grow flowers for cutting, some vegetables, etc. It would be a different twist on the classic lemonade stand. If the kids are into animals and space and zoning allows, you could keep chickens and add eggs to your mini-farmstand. Upfront costs for the garden would be small enough that they can learn about how investing in a business works at a very small scale. Along with learning about money, they also learn responsibility because it requires commitment and daily attention. It's also seasonal in a way that meshes well with school (though having animals is a constant year-round responsibility).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ba5c8e77be27b5bbb0c9e0ac99adff3", "text": "\"@MrChrister - Savings is a great idea. Coudl also give them 1/2 the difference, rather than the whole difference, as then you both get to benefit... Also, a friend of mine had the Bank of Dad, where he'd keep his savings, and Dad would pay him 100% interest every year. Clearly, this would be unsustainable after a while, but something like 10% per month would be a great way to teach the value of compounding returns over a shorter time period. I also think that it's critical how you respond to things like \"\"I want that computer/car/horse/bike/toy\"\". Just helping them to make a plan on how to get there, considering their income (and ways to increase it), savings, spending and so on. Help them see that it's possible, and you'll teach them a worthwhile lesson.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1efed33cbdfe6f3177ff25c1e7d909", "text": "There is also babysitting, dog walking and house sitting. Depending on their age of course. You should also investigate what is required to get them the ability to setup their own Roth IRA. I know one of the requirements is you can't put more into the Roth then was earned in income in the year. They might also have to file an income tax return (not sure about that one). Just think of how far ahead of the game they will be if they can get a couple of grand or more in a Roth account while in their early teens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3048767f63dd94d3d400c5ef3cc67c92", "text": "If you're trying to teach them the value of money and quantifying the dollar difference between prices, one very effective way to do this is by using bar charts. For instance, if a toy is $5, and movie they really want to see is $10, and a vacation they want to go on costs $2000, it can be a useful tool to help explain how the relative costs work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11605d7412377e6438ee6df9971add7f", "text": "\"(Although I disagree with the idea of getting a child working a real job to early, (I think kids should learn at school, learn manners, learn what the world offers and have responsibility) Here is a list of ideas that a small child can do. This is all assuming the child is to young for a work permit and a \"\"normal\"\" job. I am assuming your live in the United States. Comedy Answer: Amway. But forget about getting invited to birthday parties.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4cda418d37f637ca634dd67e846e44ef", "text": "We are a pretty average (professional, used to be fully two-income) family. I have gone part-time (plus a total career change) to be more involved at home - that's minus 50K from our family budget a year. Montessori for the younger one is - 10K. Violin (-5K) and piano (-5K) lessons for each kid... summer science camps... summer golf/tennis plus equipment... dance/sports all year round are around 10K too. We are looking at an 80K hole in our budget (compared to what we could have had). Plus by now I would have been probably more advanced in my previous career had I stayed there, so the hole is potentially even greater.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691ec3d827e205e1bde8360d73f464b0", "text": "It's simple. Look, children are basically an 18-year debt, and if a couple is poor, they can't adequately pay that debt AND their own lifestyle costs. If those who can't afford that debt simply... delayed or abstained from reproducing... that would very easily solve the poverty problem permanently, so long as the next generation followed the same. This next generation would also have more of a surplus since their parents had to have had a surplus before having kids. Ad infinitum. This is exactly what happened in my own family so I know it's possible. Ultimately, most poor people only have their parents to blame.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb4600091bc47c55b4e482237fe59389", "text": "The Child Care Expense Deduction (line 214) dollar limits will each increase by $1000, to new amounts of $8000 for children under 7 and $5000 for children age 7–16. Notes: As a tax deduction, your tax liability gets reduced at your marginal income tax rate, not the lowest tax rate (as would be the case for a tax credit). Yes, you still need receipts from your child care provider to support any claim. The non-refundable child tax credit a.k.a. amount for children under age 18 (line 367) introduced in 2007 is being eliminated starting in tax year 2015 coincident with the UCCB enhancement above. The credit could previously reduce tax liability by ~$340. The Family Tax Cut is being introduced and will be effective for tax year 2014. That is, when you file your 2014 income tax return in early 2015, you may be able to take advantage of this measure for income already earned in 2014. Provided a couple has at least one child under the age of 18, the Family Tax Cut will permit the transfer of up to $50,000 of taxable income from the higher income spouse's income tax return to the lower income spouse's return. While the potential transfer of $50,000 of taxable income to lower tax brackets sounds like a really big deal, the maximum tax relief is capped at $2000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbce4387c18772fe1658c4462faa563", "text": "I would disagree. Not all children are set to have good life outcomes. Those raised in poverty often experience a great deal of stress and suffering. Raising children to be productive adults in beneficial to society. Raising a child to continue the cycle of poverty and crime is not. Many times, people voluntarily organize into a family unit whereby the husband earns an income which can be considered in paying the wife to raise the child. Individuals are amazing at coming to voluntary agreements which help society.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990d7cea7a0d872a8b50cca148e7d234", "text": "\"This is a common and good game-plan to learn valuable life skills and build a supplemental income. Eventually, it could become a primary income, and your strategic risk is overall relatively low. If you are diligent and patient, you are likely to succeed, but at a rate that is so slow that the primary beneficiaries of your efforts may be your children and their children. Which is good! It is a bad gameplan for building an \"\"empire.\"\" Why? Because you are not the first person in your town with this idea. Probably not even the first person on the block. And among those people, some will be willing to take far more extravagant risks. Some will be better capitalized to begin with. Some will have institutional history with the market along with all the access and insider information that comes with it. As far as we know, you have none of that. Any market condition that yields a profit for you in this space, will yield a larger one for them. In a downturn, they will be able to absorb larger losses than you. So, if your approach is to build an empire, you need to take on a considerably riskier approach, engage with the market in a more direct and time-consuming way, and be prepared to deal with the consequences if those risks play out the wrong way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c020cee61c8b52238f5db2dd9a7d507", "text": "Perhaps this is lasting result of the recession. I realize that the article specifically states that Lego notably grew and profited through the recession. However, other parts of society and other markets didn't. Now, years later, perhaps those other scenarios are affecting Lego's market. Specifically, I'm drawing a parallel to my personal experience. My kids were born just before the recession. Their grade is the largest grade in the school system. Every grade behind them (the kids born during the recession) is significantly smaller. Whatever the driver(s) was, people were having fewer kids during the recession. Further, although the general view is that the recession is over and the stock markets are back, household spending and income continues to stagnate. With fewer kids and a reluctance to spend, perhaps people in the US and Europe just aren't buying as many premium toys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e373dddf3f29f86e314a823b7ab4fea6", "text": "Using household income makes sense, as you would hardly expect differences in standard of living for members of the same household. True, more people in a family will mean more expenses, but not proportionally so. For a typical family of four, it wouldn't really matter if one or both parents contributed towards the household income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9999e5a243333da3c268cf7929cc9ffc", "text": "&gt; As a parent, I call bullshit on this. I don't see why. You are confident your kids will be have more chances than you did because you are passing your wisdom onto them. Aren't they lucky to have you as parents? &gt; ...a dynastic focus on generational wealth building simply cannot be called only luck. Nobody is suggesting that wealthy people don't work. I think the point of this article is that the poor work just as hard if not harder but kids from less successful households are naturally going to be taught life skills that are less effective.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d14d3e1e91df97e32626f27aa2c3dd7", "text": "While personal responsibility plays a vital role in economic mobility, forces outside individual control, such as access to better work, clearly applies as well. Different folks apply different weight to responsibility vs. access to opportunity, but in any case one should be at least mentioned with the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3e0d7bf5b04a94b23a3aa950039e98", "text": "&gt; To imply a grand conspiracy... No conspiracy required. All you have to agree with is that having money makes it easier to make money and society will sort itself into classes that become further apart and harder to move between. &gt; How about it is hard work and good parenting? Those are important but exist in both rich and poor areas and it is a simple fact that you would get further with hard work and good parenting in a rich area than in a poor one. I think a good way to describe it is inequality of affluent opportunity and experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18601b9bb18d04a3bb4c64b4b93ce478", "text": "I have lived in communal houses. Most people don't want roommates. Especially if that means having several kids. I feel like your arguments are practical, I suppose, but not realistic. If I had 3 kids right now, if anything I would probably be earning less money because my flexibility would be much less. I couldn't pursue an education to earn more money because I would still have bills to pay for my kids. My parents are poor, and they live in an area that my job options would be about 3, and none would pay much more than minimum wage. I am 26, but I have known plenty of 19 year old single moms who just aren't able to get a job that pays well enough to support them, and again, they have few options to develop new skills. I guess you can say it is their fault, but we can hardly say that subway shouldn't have to pay them overtime or what is really less than a living wage. Economists and reality have shown us time and time again that more wages overall means a healthier economy. Every state that has raised wages in the past few years is better off because of it. Every state that has done so has seen their economy grow, and joblessness go down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a5ea0ebf12eea480e2f7ab2cd55bb9c", "text": "\"I personally believe if one (average) income could support the needs of a family (nothing extravagant) and the parents had options (instead of only one of the parents having the ability to work for an income that supports a family) it would be better. At the micro view, there would be less grudges and more time for family. I feel bad now bc I'm stretched so thin I don't even have time to watch a tv show with our kids during the week. In our situation, my husband never finished school (his mom let him drop out in the 7th grade) so his work options are very limited. He has had to work out of town jobs since before we started dating. I graduated high school but due to having kids early, I put off college. Because of the expense of daycare, I stayed at home with the kids for about 5 years. The plan is I get my degree next fall, get a decent paying job to support the family and he can figure out what he wants to do as a career and be able to pursue it without having the pressure of HAVING to make an income to support a family. I have been nudging him to at least get an online high school diploma in the mean time but I think he is self conscious and scared he can't do it. We aren't the \"\"Keeping up with the Jones\"\" kind of people. I'm just trying to reach some goals and be financially stable and not worry about if we have enough money in the bank for bills or if the car breaks down if we are screwed. A teacher's job is very time consuming so it definitely will be a challenge if you don't work a job that allows you to help out. At my internship this summer the CFO was able to just leave and bring his daughter to work whenever he needed to. That luxury is not afforded to many. Also on a side note- when you have kids, please make an effort to take your paternity leave if your job offers it. You deserve it! Employees shouldn't feel bad for taking the benefits their company offers. Gender equality ftw!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adaef46a8958f4ce4b2d54b72142aa69", "text": "If your skills are at the level of a McDonald's cashier than you should be compensated for that. You should NOT be compensated for a lifestyle which you WANT. Having a kids and a wife is a choice, no one is putting a gun to your head. If your skills are at the minimum(which is 2% in the USA) than you should not be supporting a family, it's simple. The kid with a father/mother at that level will have a terrible life, lazy parents who are not willing to work to better themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3e50dd861f531211ef5db6eeca1998b", "text": "Since this post was migrated from Parenting, my reply was in the context where it appeared to be misrepresenting facts to make a point. I've edited it to be more concise to my main point. In my opinion, the best way to save for your childs future is to get rid of as much of your own debt as possible. Starting today. For the average American, a car is 6-10%. Most people have at least a couple credit cards, ranging from 10-25% (no crap). College loans can be all over the map (5-15%) as can be signature (8-15%) or secured bank loans (4-8%). Try to stop living within your credit and live within your means. Yeah it will suck to not go to movies or shop for cute things at Kohl's, but only today. First, incur no more debt. Then, the easiest way I found to pay things off is to use your tax returns and reduce your cable service (both potentially $Ks per year) to pay off a big debt like a car or student loan. You just gave yourself an immediate raise of whatever your payment is. If you think long term (we're talking about long-term savings for a childs college) there are things you can do to pay off debt and save money without having to take up a 2nd job... but you have to think in terms of years, not months. Is this kind of thing pie in the sky? Yes and no, but it takes a plan and diligence. For example, we have no TV service (internet only service redirected an additional $100/mo to the wifes lone credit card) and we used '12 taxes to pay off the last 4k on the car. We did the same thing on our van last year. It takes willpower to not cheat, but that's only really necessary for the first year-ish... well before that point you'll be used to the Atkins Diet on your wallet and will have no desire to cheat. It doesn't really hurt your quality of life (do you really NEED 5 HBO channels?) and it sets everyone up for success down the line. The moral of the story is that by paying down your debt today, you're taking steps to reduce long haul expenditures. A stable household economy is a tremendous foundation for raising children and can set you up to be more able to deal with the costs of higher ed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6b6b282ec2c58732e168245a2809279", "text": "Check out this recent Planet Money podcast on taxes & incentives via allowance for your children. It might not directly answer your question, but it brings up some interesting things to consider when setting up an allowance for your children.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "77d204a01aa381794682d8311a8a933d", "text": "\"Borrowing to invest is almost always a bad idea. You'd have to take out an unsecured loan, which has a higher interest rate, or a secured loan and put at risk whatever you are securing the loan with. You need some means to make payments on the loan, or if interest is being added to the balance then take the compounding effect into account with regards to the cost of the money and how much you will really end up owning. In order to come out ahead you need to 'invest' in something that will yield a return that is higher than the cost of borrowing the money, such high yields always come with higher risk, meaning that you will actually GET that return is less and less of a sure thing.. so now you are talking about the 'chance' to make money, Or a chance your 'investment' could fail, perhaps badly. Meaning you could well do nothing but end up in debt with little to nothing to show for it. If someone claims to have a 'sure thing' and is encouraging you to borrow money to invest in it, I'd be checking their back for a fin and remembering the lyrics \"\"when the shark bites ... scarlet billows start to spread\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10afd6fe8226baff7b7f9efcdb68932b", "text": "\"The question should read: \"\"Borrow huge money for speculating\"\". This is a bad idea on many levels. The lowest rates available will be from time-limited credit card offers, followed by broker margin accounts. Personal loans are going to be higher. My advice: if you insist on throwing your money away, go to Vegas with $40k. At least you'll get some complimentary food and drink.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb1cf8423107a911bd071f131354e0dc", "text": "If you are looking for money to speculate in the capital markets, then your brokers will already lend to you at a MUCH more favorable rate than an outside party will. For instance, with $4,000 you could EASILY control $40,000 with many brokers, at a 1% interest rate. This is 10:1 leverage, much like how US banks operate... every dollar that you deposit with them, they speculate with 10x as much. Interactive Brokers will do this for you with your current credit score. They are very reputable and clear through Goldman Sachs, so although reputable is subjective in the investment banking world, you won't have to worry the federal government raiding them or anything. If you are investing in currencies than you can easily do 50:1 leverage as an American, or 100:1 as anyone else. This means with only $400 dollars you can control $40,000 account. If you are investing in the futures market, then there are many many ways to double and triple and quadruple your leverage at the lowest interests rates. Any contract you enter into is a loan from the market. You have to understand, that if you did happen to have $40,000 of your own money, then you could get $4,000,000 account size for speculating, at 1% interest. Again, these are QUICK ways to lose your money and owe a lot more! So I'd really advise against it. A margin call in the futures market can destroy you. I advise you to just think more efficiently until you come up with a way to earn that much money initially, and then speculate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95441942b8b50cf2a06698c919810714", "text": "Borrow money and start a business. Follow your business plan and invest in yourself and your entrepreneurship. If you mean invest in the market, do not borrow money. In your plan, you are willing to make payments right? There are lots of things you can do better, but borrowing money to invest in the market for a couple of years is not one of them. Investing is boring, saving is boring, and planning your financial future is boring. It takes a consistent effort and you aren't going to get rich quick.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5ed743c1075f892510f4690414f56a4", "text": "Have you considered social lending (for example: Lending Club)?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "4d0d12071d5a8b1fab1af788a39a6c31", "text": "No. Borrowing is not allowed, but if you take a withdrawal, you have 60 days to deposit into another IRA account. This effectively creates a 60 day loan. Not what you're really looking for. If you take this withdrawal and re-deposit to new account within 60 days, no problem. If not, you owe tax on the untaxed amount as well as a 10% penalty. This comes from IRS' Publication 590, I have the document memorized by substance, not page number.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6470741c89540d9d5adea1af37740f9b", "text": "\"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, \"\"If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?\"\" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is \"\"maybe\"\" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6538981686b2af921afea0fb21d7b9c", "text": "\"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally \"\"out of sight - out of mind\"\", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f61c2688a2b82bdbad6909bab943faf", "text": "\"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered \"\"local\"\", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b117ffc4be3b40ef6e57f576be646797", "text": "\"It may seem like you cannot live without this trip, but borrowing money is a bad habit to get into. Especially for things like vacations. Your best bet is to save up money and only ever pay cash for things that will decrease in value. Please note that while it is a bad idea to borrow money for things that decrease in value, the \"\"opposite\"\" is not necessarily true. That is, it is not necessarily a good idea to borrow money for things that will increase in value; or, will earn you income. False assumptions can cloud our judgement. The housing bubble and the stock market crash of 1929 are two examples, but there are many others.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecd8bd38a8923493a989fd91c8d71b8e", "text": "In the U.S. it is typical that a stock brokerage account can be set up to buy stock with up to half the cost being borrowed from the broker. This is called a margin account. The stock purchased must remain in the account until sold (or the loan is paid off), as it serves as built-in collateral for the loan. If the market price for the stock goes down too much, you will be required to add money, or the stock will be sold to cover the loan. See this question for some more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ed40524961487a130ef6c674b35799", "text": "US Treasury securities are the safest investment. You can buy short term by buying T-Bills. You buy T-bills at a discount to face. For example, to buy a four week T-bill the treasury will take $99.98 out of your account. In four weeks the treasury will deposit $100 into your account. The $0.02 difference is your Intrest on the loan. Compounded over a year (13 four week periods) you get a 0.24% interest. But (presumably) more importantly (to you) you get your original $99.98 back. Your government cannot nationalize money that you have on loan to the United States Government. Edit : oops, I dropped a decimal position in my original calculation of compounded rate of interest. It is now corrected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a908e79622930b75bd84c3ed3768c8", "text": "Peer to peer lending such as Kiva, Lending Club, Funding Circle(small business), SoFi(student loans), Prosper, and various other services provide you with access to the 'basic form' of investing you described in your question. Other funds: You may find the documentary '97% Owned' fascinating as it provides an overview of the monetary system of England, with parallels to US, showing only 3% of money supply is used in exchange of goods and services, 97% is engaged in some form of speculation. If speculative activities are of concern, you may need to denounce many forms of currency. Lastly, be careful of taking the term addiction too lightly and deeming something unethical too quickly. You may be surprised to learn there are many people like yourself working at 'unethical' companies changing them within.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7f88b56677a917045c41db97d6ced0", "text": "\"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ba51d2d9ec2c4cf2b1e53d4321ceaf5", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c164f3698cace48ad15cbebf89a3c733", "text": "Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0917b869f6a039582d7eb14689bceea3", "text": "It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.", "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": "4bf7100c7874c779c10be1ad9e90e119", "text": "\"Theory of Levered Investing Borrowing in order to increase investment exposure is a time-honored and legitimate activity. It's the optimal way to increase your exposure, according to finance theory (which assumes you get a good interest rate...more on this later). In your case it may or may not be a good idea. Based on the information in your post, I believe that in your case it is not a good idea. Consider the following concerns. Risk In finance, reward comes with risk and in no other way. Investing borrowed money means there is a good (not small) chance that you will lose enough money that you will need to pull significant wealth from your own savings in order to make up the difference. If you are in a position to do this and OK with that possibility, then proceed to to the next concern. If losing a lot of money means financial calamity for you, then this is a bad idea. You haven't described your financial situation so I don't know in which camp you fall. If the idea of losing, say, $100K means complete financial failure for you, then the strategy you have described simply has too much risk. Make no mistake, just because the market makes money on average does not mean it will make money, or as much money as you expect, over your horizon. It may lose money, perhaps a lot of money. Make sure this idea is very clear in your mind before taking action. Rewards Your post implies that you think you can reliably get 10%-12% on an investment. This is not the case. There are many years in which a reasonable portfolio makes this much or more, but on average you will earn less. No ones knows the true long-term market risk premium, but it is definitely less than 10%. A better guess would be 6.5% plus whatever the risk-free rate is (currently about 0%). Buying \"\"riskier\"\" investments means deviating from the optimal portfolio, meaning you took on more risk than is justified by how much extra money you expect to make. I never encourage people to invest based on optimistic or unrealistic goals. If anything, you should be conservative about how you expect things to go. And remember, these are averages. Any portfolio that earns 10%-12% also has a very good chance of losing 25% or more. People who sell or give advice on investments frequently get you charged up by pointing at times and investments that have done very well. Unfortunately, we never know whether the investments and time period in which we are investing will be a good one, a bad one, or an unexciting one. The reality of investing is...well, more realistic than what you have described. Costs I can't imagine how you could borrow that much money and only have an annual payment of $2000 as you imply--that must be a mistake. No individual borrows at a rate significantly below 1%. It sounds like it's not a collateralized loan of any kind, so unless you are some kind of prime-loan customer, your interest rate will be significant. Subtract whatever rate you actually pay from 6.5% to get a rough idea of how much you will make if things go as well as they do on average. You will pay the interest whether times are good or bad. If your rate is typical of noncollateralized personal loans, there's a good chance you will lose money on average using the strategy you have described. If you are OK with taking risk with a negative expected return, consider a trip to Las Vegas. It's more exciting. Ethics I'm not one to make people feel guilty for doing things that are legal but of questionable morality. If that's the case and you are OK with it, more power to you. I'm not sure under what pretense you expect to obtain the money, but it sounds like you might be crossing legal lines and committing actual crimes (like fraud). Make sure to check on whether what you intend is a white lie or something that can get you thrown in prison. For example, if you are proposing obtaining a subsidized education loan and using it for speculation, I could easily see you spending serious time in prison and permanently ruining your life, even if your plan works out. A judge and 12 of your peers are not going to think welfare fraud is a harmless twist of the truth. Summary I've said a lot of negative things here. This is because I have to guess about your financial situation and it sounds like you may have unrealistic expectations of the safety and generosity of investing. Quite frankly, people for whom borrowing $250K is no big deal don't normally come and ask about it on StackExchange and they definitely don't tend to lie in order to get loans. Also $18K a year doesn't change their quality of life. However, I don't know. If $250K is small relative to your wealth and you need a good way to increase your exposure to the market risk premium, then borrowing and investing may well be a good idea.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8082d5dbe8ace4746ececb5fbe53dea7", "text": "Unfortunately the answer is, almost none. Almost everything has a risk of decreasing; but given your short time horizon and presumably given that you want back your principal in full, plus a little bit, you have few choices. (Some of the following may be Canadian specific terms, but hopefully they are generic enough to apply) Savings accounts, money-market funds and the like should be available at any bank. Interest won't pay you much right now, but the money should be safe (I presume Israel has some kind of deposit insurance for normal bank accounts?) Slightly more risky would be a short-to-maturity bond or stripped bond coupon. The entry amount of money for one of these may be more than you have on hand, or the setup fee for an investment account might be more than you want to bother with for a one-off investment. Given that you seem to indicate that you might need access to the money during the time-frame in question, the bank-account option seems to be the only one really available.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "e3c326b2ea3f1b5e375bbd90af5d2132", "text": "\"I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit. Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order. Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees. This is another \"\"step function.\"\" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "180368ebdb2fa642ae3f540d64e0e4d7", "text": "\"I probably wouldn't turn down a raise, but there are some circumstances in which you might hesitate. Having a disproportionately high salary for your type of role or the value you are providing to the company makes you an attractive layoff target in an economic downturn. I've heard anecdotally of lots of corporate lawyers getting laid off because they were getting raises every year, and ended up with such ridiculous salaries that when the economy went south, the company basically asked \"\"why are we paying these people so much?\"\" Same thing happens in lots of places - Circuit City lays off the experienced, highly-paid salespeople and brings in cheap-o high school students (that didn't work out well for them, but they did it anyway). Still, even knowing that, I'd accept the pay raise. You're making more money the whole time you're employed, and prior salary is the biggest predictor of the salary you can negotiate at a new position.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b746fa726e1723cb28bd6ebb60a627b5", "text": "\"My answer has nothing to do with tax brackets or mathematics (I'm taking advantage of the leeway your question allowed), but rather it has to do with career goals and promotion. Large companies often have large \"\"Policies & Procedures\"\" booklets to go with them. One policy that sometimes exists which would make it a bad idea to accept a raise is: Employee cannot be given more than one salary increase in a 12-month period This means that if you accept a standard-of-living or merit increase of say, 2% or 3% in April, and then you apply for a job that would otherwise warrant a pay grade increase, you may be forced to wait until the following year to get bumped to the proper pay grade. Of course, this totally depends on the company, but it would be advisable to check your company's H.R. policy on that, if you're considering a move (even a lateral one) in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b434b7b7a2e750295a18e50334555552", "text": "If you have children in a university institution, then your annual salary is reported via financial aid forms. The small raise could be the difference between full tuition covered and only half tuition covered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79de53b2ca5cd475b5f1a203e519e4fe", "text": "I had a colleague turn down a raise once because he believed that female colleagues were already being paid well below his salary and it was unfair to further increase this gap. For very public figures raises are often declined as a form of leadership: showing that management is willing to forgo bonuses and salary increases as a form of solidarity with the employee population. Some leaders forgo a salary altogether (or take a $1/year salary).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61c17946cf2d33967b718ffe3db500f1", "text": "I would turn down a 20% raise in salary without thinking, if they would offer that I can have a 4 day work week. I even take a 10% cut for this!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0eb8fd7848105c6f127549bf3f6cd33", "text": "Here in Germany there is a special case. I am studying (and working a little on the side) and still receiving child benefits from the state which is like 190€/m. Because I am getting this I don't have to pay tuition which is 1k/y. If my side income would get over the boundary (which is like 9k/y) I would lose those benefits (~3.3k) and would have to pay insurance myself (I dont know how much that would be. 50-100/m I guess.) So getting a raise from 8k to 10k sounds nice as it is a 25% raise, but it actually means getting less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71a8f1cfe2081d6b80639bcdb92833ae", "text": "I once turned down a raise because I didn't agree with the employee review that supposedly substantiated the raise. I felt the review to be superficial and incomplete. Then I refused to sign it, or take the accompanying raise, due to that fact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef238d44f6ade1b18699e8e1f245592d", "text": "In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "153ac29de4630fcbcea28e9bbe3b1185", "text": "In the UK, the government has recently announced that Child Benefit will no longer be paid to those who earn over £44k. This means that if you currently earn £43,999, and your employer offers you a raise of £10 per annum to £44,009, then you could be over £1k worse off as a result.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b2a4930485c93547ff9ffe8c4a39c2", "text": "The only valid reason from a financial point of view is if the raise is a promotion or comes with conditions that are unacceptable to you. You may not want added supervisory responsibilties, for example. You need to use discretion when refusing advancement though, at places where I have worked, declining a raise or promotion is seen as a career killer for some circumstances.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5d66cfdc3c1cde6eaaec09ba802a21b", "text": "At least with US tax law where you only pay taxes at the higher rate for the income above the minimum for that tax bracket, you will always wind up ahead taking the raise if you are simply concerned with after tax (FICA) income. For example, assume you were making $8,350 (the top end of the 10% bracket in the US), and got a $100 raise, you would be taxed roughly as follows: After Tax Income Before Raise: $8,350 x (100% - 10%) After Tax Income After Raise: $8,350 x (100%-10%) + $100 x (100%-15%) You can easily see that the second number is always higher than the first as long as the raise is a positive amount (obviously).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9afd809b19ea026a97e23618f37748", "text": "I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise. One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51923f3d32c6455dafbdb60e7766dc59", "text": "Sometimes it's not entirely about take-home pay. A pay raise can affect other things like: These things need to be considered since they also affect quality of life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f6526f89de81cff8e4019c891345375", "text": "There is currently a bill in Washington that will change the limit for salaried employees receiving overtime pay. It will be raised to $50400. I work 4 hours of overtime each week, which if the bill is passed, equates to an additional $7800 annually. If my company raises my salary to just above the limit then they would not have to pay the overtime. That would only be a raise of approx. $3000. Why would I want to take the raise, and still have to work the overtime, when I can choose to not take the raise and possibly not have to work it any longer. I would rather have the time off, but if I'm going to have to work it, then I'll take the more than double overtime pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2999b33798536f587211bf4346238fc", "text": "There are some student loan repayment programs and the like where, if a raise would bump you past a certain threshold, you become ineligible and are suddenly left holding the whole bag, or alternately the payoff for having your loans forgiven/repaid drops considerably. It can make financial sense to avoid crossing those thresholds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27e0430f759036c11f1f3a188d4dbd52", "text": "\"This would never apply for tax \"\"brackets\"\". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the \"\"brackets\"\" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "befd90c643c2f13546371eefe400dddc", "text": "\"One \"\"economic reason\"\" to turn down a raise is if your company gives bonuses based on performance reviews. When you get a raise in salary, your boss usually expects a better performance from you. That being said, if you get the raise, and your performance review is worse, you might get a smaller annual income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6469c3c29865963a8e5df4b2ddec26cc", "text": "\"In Australia there are cases for the argument. 1) We have laws against unfair dismissal that do not apply above certain thresholds. Your position is more secure with the lower salary. 2) Tax benefits for families are unfairly structured such that take home pay may actually be less, again due to a threshold. This tends to benefit charities as people need to shed the taxable income if a repayment of benefits would otherwise be triggered. 3) You do not want to \"\"just cross\"\" a tax bracket in a year where levies are being raised for natural disasters or budget shortfall. In this case a raise could be deferred ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d031a7f86ad55631c6d625512021e17", "text": "It would make sense to refuse a raise when it pushes your effective marginal 'tax' (including reduced benefits) above 100%. The working poor (family of 4, 20K-40K in the US) often face marginal rates above 100% when you consider the phase out of various government benefits (EITC, insurance, housing,etc.) You can see the research here and here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36e4353c63bbbd0351696c2c0894910e", "text": "Jurisdictions will vary but I can imagine calculation methods for child support where the raise could become significant in the present with long future ramifications as well, even if the job is temporary or the parent wanted to step away from working full-time to attend school. The timing of the raise might coincide with disclosure of income to an ex-spouse or to the court related and it might be preferable to postpone the increase. Of course the court would probably frown on declining the raise for only these reasons. If it found out it might impute the higher income anyway. And I'm not suggesting that people dodge responsibility for their kids. We've all seen those cases where child support is not particularly equitable between the two parties and/or the kids do not necessarily benefit by the transfer of money. I wouldn't blame a parent for thoughtfully and unselfishly considering this type of second-order effect and consulting an attorney as with so many other financial implications of divorce. Regardless of personal moral objections it's certainly an answer to the question in technical terms that somebody somewhere has taken into account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8727042c22aefe9e3adf5f21e60d2b2", "text": "I recently rejected an offer at a different firm that would have provided a 14k yearly increase. The reason for the rejection was because I would have had to give up two work from home days, my commute would have been about an hour and half each way, I would have lost about 14 extra days of PTO and holiday pay, and the new company didn't match anything for 401k.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "27d00415eb2551c200e1cabbf5273d3f", "text": "The problem with this is that it really only works in a small firm where everyone knows everyone else. Once it gets bigger and all the managers don't know all the workers it becomes a matter of who can BS the skill level of their favorites better in the yearly review. Then the resentment isn't about normally unknown salaries, it's about whether other employee's levels are legitimate. Don't get me wrong, opening up the conversation and trying to make it more objective is good, but this isn't some sort of common sense, one size fits all panacea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "494c5a502d369a1c921ab752b8ff5948", "text": "\"The real question is what can you NOT do! If you track all your monetary actions, you know everything about your monetary situation. That means you have the tools to ask and answer \"\"what if\"\" questions, such as: \"\"If I get a 10% raise, could I take longer vacations?\"\" You could calculate how much you spend per day on vacation and then consider the amount of your raise and how much of it you'd need to allocate to vacations to, say, be able to take a two-week vacation instead of a one-week vacation. \"\"How much more would I have to earn to move to this nicer apartment?\"\" This may seem like a simple question, but a surprising number of people can't answer it in a reliable way, because they don't have a clear understanding of how much money they make and how much of it they can afford to spend on housing. If you find you have lots of spare income, maybe you can move to the nicer place right away; if not, at least you can get a sense of how much more money you'd need to make it happen. \"\"If I started taking the bus to work, how much would I save?\"\" You can look at how much you spend on gas and compare that to the price of a bus pass. By separating out categories like gas, repairs, and car insurance, you can also calculate different scenarios, like if you still kept your car but only used it for occasional trips, versus if you sold the car and used only public transportation. \"\"If I want to take a trip to Tahiti, what can I cut back on to save the money?\"\" Using your table you can pencil out scenarios like \"\"Suppose I stop eating out for lunch at work and just bring my lunch, how long would I have to do that to save enough to pay for a plane ticket?\"\" These are just a few random examples. The general idea is that with a record of hard numbers, you can start to consider potential tradeoffs in an objective way --- that is, you can ask \"\"how much in category X would I have to give up to gain this thing I want in category Y?\"\" The real trick in making use of your data is not so much \"\"what\"\" you can do, but \"\"how\"\" exactly to do it. You may have to become more of a spreadsheet wizard to really delve into these questions. Also, if you have programming expertise, you can even use something like Python to do calculations that might be laborious in a spreadsheet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0df7234de23fe9441f835f8083b937e7", "text": "This was absolutely true for me. I'm retired now. Until my last company I always got about 5% raise. When I skipped jobs the raise was usually enormous. I went: 19K 25K 30K 35K 50K 75K 85k 75K (last job sucked and this one was stupid simple at first) New company gave me steady raises to $125K and I got to do awesome work and was in complete control. There is no way I would have gone from 19K to 125K at the same firm.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efbeb66e10cd48131de8e89d2a0fdc6a", "text": "All hearsay and a bad memory, but if I remember correctly, when you dig deep the reason he raised salaries was to help fight some lawsuits against his ex wife and/or ex business partner. These raises effectively made the company make nothing while he was fighting lawsuits. Then it eventually turned into publicity and more clients for his payment processing company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a02d314be40e2de7566d5585bb79ddf7", "text": "\"And that is my point: without specific dollar amounts...this is USELESS information. The problem with this crap information is that some crappy operation will find a reason to pay themselves more for being a \"\"good boss\"\" thinking that will make up for any raises. I'd take a better boss over a 5-cent an hour raise (and yes, I worked at McDonalds when raises were 0-5-10 cents an hour...and yeah, I would have liked a better boss for 5 cents). However, for an annual job that pays $500/hr I'll gladly work in horrid conditions with a horrible boss doing awful things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442ed4cce3fedeeeb99c73feb326f40b", "text": "Not necessarily. You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins. Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin. Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fa35b69d33d8655a192fae2ddb950b1", "text": "Microsoft doesn't do salary negotiations... The way the salary structure works at Microsoft is similar to how it works in many other huge companies. You have a rank/level/title (eg. developer, Senior developer, Principal developer, and upwards) and your salary is based solely on that. For example, every new college hire starts at a certain rank (whether foreign or not) and every new college hire starts at the same level of pay. When you get a promotion you get a new title and a corresponding pay increase. You can't negotiate for bonuses or salary increases, it's set in stone for everyone. This is for engineering positions, obviously sales/marketing/etc. all have different structures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a7f356bac3336d22f16c480e4c8a41", "text": "its not that hard to figure out Please explain how arbitrarily raising employee wages would raise demand. What kind of 'demand' do you even speak of? Did you mean [Labor Demand](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_demand) ---I think what you talking about is [Consumer Confidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_confidence). Please enlighten me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bce8281f921835b728fba8738e1ec55c", "text": "I had a similar decision to make. I got offered a modest salary near Philly, or a better salary plus a nice bonus in New York. I chose New York. I'm loving it so far but who knows what will happen. I'm actually saving a lot of money as I automatically have it deduct from my paycheck and disperse into several savings accounts. I guess it's different for everyone and you have to consider your situation before applying a blanket advice", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e0f407d03737175db7d72d8f5e9d3e4", "text": "This is bad statistics. If you look at people who jumped ship, of course you're going to see bigger increases in salary because you're not counting those that looked for a new job and didn't find a better offer. They stayed put. People are complacent but companies are, too. Employers aren't putting a lot of effort into firing bad employees as soon as they can. So there are employees that aren't jumping ship and could be paid more but there are also employees that should be kicked off the ship and paid less, but aren't. All that said, staying put is easier than moving and there's a price for it. If you're willing to move around, you might do better. Might not. If you only look around at the ones that did move, of course it's going to look like they did better!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4f0df64d1cd7d42776f3b94467ed780", "text": "Recent MBA grad here. I would much rather work at a job that makes me happy than a job that pays more. With that said, I'm feeling pressure to earn a fairly high salary to pay off all the student loans. I will probably spend a few years trying to find a balance between happiness and salary and then completely forget about salary after my loans are paid off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "215dc7dad7674e2dfac95e80a8d3df64", "text": "\"Many in management seem to live in an alternate reality from those who work for a living. When IBM shunted some techs into another company they put them on probation for a year (even though they were high performers - some with 25+ years at IBM = no job security) and cut their pay 25%. The next time they went to move workers the first question was \"\"how much is the pay cut this time\"\". Management's reply, \"\"No pay cut because we found when we did it before it negatively affected morale.\"\" I thought: \"\"No kidding. They had to actually cut people's pay 25% to figure that out? What planet DO they live on?\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250bf86246dfc46508bdbb932830201a", "text": "&gt; but since that's impossible (due to the bureaucracy) in most jobs Huh? Dude, asking for a raise is never impossible. Go to your manager and make a well thought-out case. This is how it's done. It's not magic. Very rarely, in any professional environment, will anyone just hand you a raise because they think you're a nice guy. Keeping your head down and nose to the grindstone will not get you noticed. Obviously, going elsewhere to get that higher salary should also be an option. I did it once too. But in the situation you describe, you'd be crazy not to go demand a bigger slice of the pie.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "587a65d963fc2a65049684b33ecee4f6", "text": "My doubt is whether Govt./Reserve Bank of India gives any explicit incentives to banks to offer cheaper home loans ? Currently NO. In the past Loan against GOLD was considered priority sector lending [Loans to poor and agriculture etc]. Every Bank need to lead around 25% to priority sector. Hence quite a few Banks gave loans relatively cheaper to todays rate rather than giving it as Farm loan that almost never get recovered. It is no longer the case now as Loan against GOLD is not considered priority lending. If it were just demand/supply, I feel that gold loans should have been cheaper It is demand and supply. There are quite a few reasons for this;", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50d0b42ef54f328df9c633c45a1d2aba", "text": "No, you can't do this indefinitely. For one, you can't just take money out as home equity with no strings attached. The cash out is done as a loan (often a HELOC) or second mortgage and you have to make payments. The lender will always make sure you are able to afford the payments. At some point, you won't qualify for the loan because of insufficient income or too many previous liens on the property. While home values often go up, there's no guarantee. And your examples are more than a bit optimistic.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "6786bc955c5dbae56ff2fd03047f65da", "text": "\"The rent payment is in principle taxable. However, you should be able to take advantage of the \"\"rent a room\"\" scheme, and the proposed rent falls well under the £7,500/year tax threshold for that. So no tax will be actually payable and you don't have to formally declare it as long as you stay below that threshold. You should also be fairly well legally protected in case you do split up in future and you want to remove her. As you would be living there too, she would just be a lodger, not a tenant (technically, an \"\"excluded occupier\"\"). If you did want her to leave you would only need to give reasonable notice and wouldn't need a formal court order if you needed to force her to go. As JBentley points out, there have been court cases where domestic partners contributing to household expenses while the other partner paid the mortgage have later been able to claim that this implied joint ownership. This was on the basis of a \"\"constructive trust\"\" being implicitly setup by the way they arranged their finances. In your case, if there's a clear intention, formalised in writing, for the money to be treated as rent rather than a contribution towards purchasing the property, I think it should make it very hard to claim the contrary later. I would also suggest you be clear about whether the rent includes a share of the utility bills, and that things like groceries would be handled separately and split 50:50 or whatever. As pointed out in a comment, there are template agreements for lodgers you could use a starting point (e.g. this one), but it's likely you'd need to customise it to your circumstances. Another point made in another answer is that there's potential upcoming legislation to give some rights to cohabiting partners. In the current draft, those would kick in after three years or having children. If the bill does come into effect, you'd also be able to sign an opt out, but only after getting legal advice, and it would still be possible (though presumably hard) to persuade a court to overturn an opt out. Overall that does create a small risk to you, but not one that comes directly from your girlfriend paying rent. It's likely that if you are both on an equal financial footing and had always kept your finances separate, that there wouldn't be any award made anyway. And you can't run your entire life on hypothetical risks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "533849b422ef3b33e57bd133c162eba5", "text": "\"With regard to worries about ownership: I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the \"\"cohabitants\"\" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a couple before the commencement date; However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous period of three years or more. and the \"\"have lived together\"\" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae78b765445388e78ff43a789df3076b", "text": "\"Disclaimer: I am a law student, not a lawyer, and don't claim to have a legal opinion one way or another. My answer is intended to provide a few potentially relevant examples from case law in order to make the point that you should be cautious (and seek proper advice if you think that caution is warranted). Nor am I claiming that the facts in these cases are the same as yours; merely that they highlight the flexible approach that the courts take in such cases, and the fact that this area of law is complicated. I don't think it is sensible to just assume that there is no way that your girlfriend could acquire property rights as a rent paying tenant if arranged on an informal basis with no evidence of the intention of the arrangement. One of the answers mentions a bill which is intended to give non-married partners more rights than they have presently. But the existence of that bill doesn't prove the absence of any existing law, it merely suggests a possible legal position that might exist in the future. A worst-case assumption should also be made here, since you're considering the possibility of what can go wrong. So let's say for the sake of the argument that you have a horrible break up and your girlfriend is willing to be dishonest about what the intentions were regarding the flat (e.g. will claim that she understood the arrangement to be that she would acquire ownership rights in exchange for paying two thirds of the monthly mortgage repayment). Grant v Edwards [1986] Ch 638 - Defendant had property in the name of himself and his brother. Claimant paid nothing towards the purchase price or towards mortgage payments, but paid various outgoings and expenses. The court found a constructive trust in favor of the claimant, who received a 50% beneficial interest in the property. Abbot v Abbot [2007] UKPC 53, [2008] 1 FLR 1451 - Defendant's mother gifted land to a couple with the intention that it be used as a matrimonial home. However it was only put into the defendant's name. The mortgage was paid from a joint account. The claimant was awarded a 50% share. Thompson v Hurst [2012] EWCA Civ 1752, [2014] 1 FLR 238 - Defendant was a council tenant. Later, she formed a relationship with the claimant. They subsequently decided to buy the house from the council, but it was done in the defendant's name. The defendant had paid all the rent while a tenant, and all the mortgage payments while an owner, as well as all utility bills. The claimant sometimes contributed towards the council tax and varying amounts towards general household expenses (housekeeping, children, etc.). During some periods he paid nothing at all, and at other times he did work around the house. Claimant awarded 10% ownership. Aspden v Elvy [2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch), [2012] 2 FCR 435 - The defendant purchased a property in her sole name 10 years after the couple had separated. The claimant helped her convert the property into a house. He did much of the manual work himself, lent his machinery, and contributed financially to the costs. He was awarded a 25% share. Leeds Building Society v York [2015] EWCA Civ 72, [2015] HLR 26 (p 532) - Miss York and Mr York had a dysfunctional and abusive relationship and lived together from 1976 until his death in 2009. In 1983 Mr York bought a house with a mortgage. He paid the monthly mortgage repayments and other outgoings. At varous times Miss York contributed her earnings towards household expenses, but the judge held that this did \"\"not amount to much\"\" over the 33 year period, albeit it had helped Mr York being able to afford the purchase in the first place. She also cooked all the family meals and cared for the daughter. She was awarded a 25% share. Conclusion: Don't make assumptions, consider posting a question on https://law.stackexchange.com/ , consider legal advice, and consider having a formal contract in place which states the exact intentions of the parties. It is a general principle of these kinds of cases that the parties need to have intended for the person lacking legal title to acquire a beneficial interest, and proof to the contrary should make such a claim likely to fail. Alternatively, decide that the risk is low and that it's not worth worrying about. But make a considered decision either way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92e9ecee4cfbe3d7f5e2c7f590b1635b", "text": "\"Edit #2 My whole answer was based on my misunderstanding that you were renting out a totally separate property to your girl friend. I finally understand now that you're renting out a room in YOUR apartment flat to your gf. So, based on my new understanding, I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. The answer below is my answer to a different question ;) Original Answer My answer has nothing to do with business, but is totally relationship based. If you care about her in a \"\"we might be together a long time\"\" way, then I wouldn't do this. I don't care what arrangements you setup before hand, at some point, you're bound to feel like she owes you something at some point. Let alone the easiest of situations to imagine (she's late on the rent, she loses her job and can't pay, etc) you'll be forced to make decisions about how much your desire to love and care for her outweighs your need to pay your mortgage. You can argue how magnanimous your are all day long, but is this something you want to bring into your relationship? Now, if you don't really care to stay with her that long and you could do life with or without her, then go for it. I think the big question is, is your relationship worth £200? Edit In the interest of supporting my opinion, here are a few articles I found on the subject: Unfortunately, the way renting to friends or family often works out is far from what would be expected between people who care about one another. For the most part, friends and family members will actually make bad renters, because they’ll expect more from you than a tenant who doesn’t know you. You may get a lot of requests for maintenance and repairs, even for minor things, and you may also find that family members and friends think they should be entitled to perks because of your personal relationship with them. When they don’t get special treatment, they can get angry with you, and that hurts both your professional relationship and your personal relationship. American Apartment Owners Association \"\"In my experience, landlords renting to relatives doesn't work out perfectly,\"\" said Ceyhun Doker, a REALTOR® associate at Keller Williams Realty in Burlingame, CA. \"\"When you don't know each other, there are fewer problems.\"\" realator.com\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1ff3cee0decc25182c465a797af4a69", "text": "\"If you are living together 'casually' (no formal partnership agreement) then my option would be to ask her politely to as she has offered make a contribution by buying the groceries or some such which you share. A 'voluntary contribution' not an enforceable one. Just as between flat mates where only one is the actual tenant of the flat but the tenancy allows 'sharing' . Check your tenancy allows you to share lodgings. PS An old Scots saying is \"\"never do business with close family\"\". I.e do not charge your wife or living in partner rent. It mixes emotional domestic life with a formal business life which can set feuds going in case of a break up or dispute. If you enter into child bearing relationship or parent hood or formal partnership or marriage then all this changes at some time in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77db79bc713af652e61e44c5c4c3506a", "text": "I have been renting rooms out of my house for over 7 years now. When renting to non-family, the arrangement is usually successful. People leave for various reasons, an occasionally I will ask someone to move out if they are not working out. In the USA, this works well because by keeping things formal (rental agreements, etc) you actually have a great business with lots of deductions that end up reducing you net income quite a bit. However, US law makes a big distinction about whether or not you're renting to family/relatives, specifically around whether or not they are paying full-market rent for their room. If not, then you are subsidizing them which could disqualify your property (or at least the portion they are using) from being legitimately rented -- and thus no tax deductions for said activity. The other risk, -- again, in the USA -- is the possibility of a long-term relationship falling under rules of common-law marriage. This is rare unless children are involved. A couple who have children, married or not, may have the courts get involved to oversee the division of assets with regards to ensuring the children have a place to live and adequate financial support. For the UK, I would think the laws would be roughly similar. Check out this website for more a detailed review. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "5379e3edcfed336432b98afdd0b7da9e", "text": "Equity means having ownership, and I think that's a REALLY bad idea in the scenario that you described. If you stay together, there's really no upside to either of you in this scheme. If you break-up then you'll have a terrible mess, especially if the break-up goes badly. If she's really building equity, you're going to be faced with several hard questions: If this went bad at the end, it might be worse than a divorce in some sense since at least in the divorce you have established law to sort out the issues. You'll be on your own here without a formal contract. (Marriage being a special case of a contract for our purposes here.) If she wants to share costs (which seems perfectly fair) then agree to rent and a split on utilities. If you really insist on going down the path that you described, I think that you'll need some sort of contract, which probably involves a lawyer. Anything short of that could not be considered having equity at all and will be completely unenforceable in the event of a bad break-up. (There is some notion of a verbal contract, but that's very hard to prove and subject to misunderstanding and misremembering.) Aside from all of these potential problems in event of a break-up, you would probably also be violating the terms of your mortgage, if you have one. From the bank's perspective, you are selling the property that is the collateral for that loan, which you're almost surely not allowed to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d70f2cae68608a83cef66fb85788404", "text": "@Pete B.'s answer is good, but there's an important note to consider for tax purposes. It's too large for a comment, so I'm adding it as an answer. And that is: you cannot claim the property as a rental property under certain conditions. This affects things like claiming mortgage interest (which you don't have), and depreciation in value (which a rental is allowed). See IRS topic 415 for details, but I've included an important excerpt below with emphasis added: If you rent a dwelling unit to others that you also use as a residence, limitations may apply to the rental expenses you can deduct. You're considered to use a dwelling unit as a residence if you use it for personal purposes during the tax year for more than the greater of: ... A day of personal use of a dwelling unit is any day that it's used by: Talk to a tax accountant to better understand the ramifications of this, but it's worth noting that you can't just rent it to her for a paltry sum and be able to take tax advantages from this arrangement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e358964ef4d8854056def7c4295833a4", "text": "\"Sheesh, are people kidding here? It's a gift. It's not fraud. Just keep in mind that, because it's a gift, you cannot get it \"\"back\"\" if you break up--you are giving it to her. If you happen to get married at some point in the future, you will then own part of the apartment, but that is a completely separate matter. Give her the money, don't expect it back. Ever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67fc6e66cbc207b055bcc40eee9d8143", "text": "\"Expenses: IMO, The best way to deal with this situation is by treating you staying at her house as flatting/renting a room as @Pseudonym stated he does with his partner in the comments of another answer. This means you pay X amount of dollars a week to her as rent which she can most likely choose to put it towards house insurance, interest, repayments, repairs and improvements etc etc. From there you split your \"\"living\"\" expenses 50/50. Living expenses include stuff like telephone, internet, utility bills, food, contents insurance etc. Renting Income: Then the earnings/losses you make from renting your apartment out are yours alone. After all if your place gets trashed by a tenant with a meth lab, she won't and shouldn't have to pay the ridiculous amounts of money required to get it fixed up. Determining the rent to pay: Not Ideal, but an easy method: Use your place's renting value as a indicator/market research example to determine how much rent you would pay to her (however since you are only a half resident at her place you would only pay half). Ideal: Your place would have a different renting value to hers, so do some research together and find a median renting value of her house based on similar houses or ask her how much she wants you to pay in rent since after all the owner of the house has final say on the renting value. You \"\"might\"\" want to consider that you staying with her is a more secure tenancy as she knows you won't wreak her place, but the same cannot be said for the tenant you have in your place. (Post in the comments if you think this last sentence should be removed, I'm on the fence about it but it seems relevant.) Disclaimer: Remember you are considering a long-term relationship with her don't get too picky and don't let it get personal/emotional when deciding the renting amounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdfe549e223d987b50180c7313a44aa3", "text": "The simplest way to handle this is for you to rent the apartment and sublet to the girlfriend and friend. I'd split the utilities evenly, one-third from each. The reason for this is that each of you contribute evenly to generating the utility bills. It's not like your income makes the water cost more for you. Utilities are driven by usage. Dividing them other than equally is likely to lead to more problems than it solves. Also, it seems unlikely that a different apartment would use significantly different water, electricity, or internet. Those are driven by the appliances rather than the size or location of the apartment. Only pay more for the utilities if you want something that they don't. For example, maybe you want HBO, etc. It would be reasonable for you to pay the entire premium if that's a luxury that they simply wouldn't buy. I'd also divide the groceries evenly if you share and share alike. If you eat separate meals, you can buy separate groceries. If the rent can't be split evenly but you could afford it alone, then you can just sign up for it. If you break up with the girlfriend and/or the friend moves out, you're still fine. You have your fancy apartment and can afford it. The bigger problem comes if you can't afford the apartment without both the girlfriend and friend contributing. If so, you should probably avoid this situation. It's fragile. Any person leaving would put you in a financially untenable position. You can look for a new tenant to replace your friend, but you can't exactly rely on getting a new move-in girlfriend on demand. Neither the girlfriend nor the friend can afford to be on the main lease. In case of emergency or tragedy, they couldn't replace you as a tenant. That's why they should sublet. Then their obligation is to you, not to the landlord. How much apartment would the girlfriend and friend get if you weren't involved? What rents would they pay? That's probably how much rent they should pay for this apartment. You want a better apartment (or a better location)? That's on you. You should only do this if you want to do it. If you want to share apartments with the girlfriend and friend, then do so. Work out something equitable. If you plan on moving in together to reduce your costs, then you don't sound like you are compatible. Obviously there are reasons to move in with the girlfriend aside from costs. Why can't the friend get his or her own place? The added rent probably won't do more than pay for the added room (you could get a one bedroom without the friend). That points to an alternative way of calculating the friend's contribution: the difference between a two bedroom and a one bedroom apartment. That's the additional cost of the bigger apartment. If the friend can't afford that, then this might not be a good idea. Make sure that you can afford the apartment if one or both of the friend and girlfriend move out. You can eventually replace the friend as the tenant but don't rely on doing the same with the girlfriend. Share utilities evenly. Possibly groceries too. The friend should pay at least the added cost of the additional bedroom. Don't expect either to pay more in the new apartment than they would pay without you. You should be the only one on the main lease; sublet to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68922f8b7da11e444b92f686b6ced412", "text": "Unlike others who have answered the question - I have done this. Here is my experience - your mileage and friendship may vary: I bought a condo years ago with a longtime childhood friend. We did it for all the reasons you mentioned - sick of renting and not building equity, were both young, single professionals who had the money. The market crashed we have both since married and moved on to own other properties with our spouses. Now we rent out the condo as selling in the current market is not doable.. It's not an ideal situation but that is because of the real estate market - not who I bought with. You need to discuss very openly all of the following scenarios, as well as others I can't think of right now I am sure: If you aren't both 100% in sync with these questions then do not do it. I never understand why some people would buy with a girlfriend/boyfriend but not a good personal friend. You're more likely to have a falling out with your significant other then a long time close friend. My advice, have honest, open conversations, about all possible scenarios. If you feel necessary put somethings down into some sort of legal agreement - with us it was not, and still isn't necessary.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c0a842e6d4c055a20cee1ebfe6a3b1d", "text": "\"You're making $100k together per year: you're not in the donut hole, you're in the top 25% of all households, and the top 10% of non-family households (as yours would be). To be blunt, you're not in the \"\"rely on assistance\"\" area: you're in the \"\"save up for your downpayment\"\" sector. My suggestion would be to figure out a way to save more than $200-$400 a month for now. $100k gross income means you have about $8k net income per month; $2k for rent and other necessities means you have $6k per month that you can potentially save. Even half of that - $3k per month - means you have $24000 saved by the end of this year, and $36000 on an annual basis. As far as marriage or domestic partnership - I wouldn't get into one based on whether it helps you afford a home. It might be a good idea because it helps you handle some of the details arising when you have joint property, perhaps, but not solely for the financial aspect. And as far as how much home is realistic? $250k is certainly realistic if you can save up enough for a good down payment. Try to get to the 20-25% range. If you're already halfway there, another year of renting won't kill you, and it will mean no PMI and much better rates. Also consider a 15 year mortgage; we're in the same general income category as you and manage a 15 year on a $250k range house quite nicely. It doesn't add all that much to your monthly payment amount, compared to what you'd expect - particularly since the monthly payment includes property taxes which won't increase based on the length of the mortgage. Now that we have actual numbers from the OP: So, without cutting anything, you have $2k yourself you can be saving. (This assumes your rent number of $1345 is your portion of rent, and not the 100% amount.) That's $24000 per year, just by yourself. On top of that, you've got another $40k or so coming from your partner, at least some of which should be available as well if he/she is going to be co-owning? But if not, at least you have about $2000 a month you can be saving. You could also downsize the car, cut cable TV, downsize the phone, and have another $500 or so available - but it doesn't really look like you need to do that, given how much you have available now. I'd look at what you're doing with that ~$2000 per month right now, and see how you can free most of it up. You haven't mentioned a few things like utilities, not sure if that's just forgetfulness or if your partner is paying them; so perhaps not all of it is available. But - even $1000 a month is $12000 to add to the $20000 you have now, which makes a big dent in that down payment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419c9242f195bf26a718bf4e307dc73d", "text": "You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c2838624733017e3b4fd0b74a966f5d", "text": "There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage. She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "024f190b764183dc722c34c4360e0f90", "text": "The mortgage and title of the house would be under both your names equally. When I applied for a mortgage with my girlfriend, I was the primary applicant because of my credit score and she was the secondary because of her income (she makes more). When all was said and done, it was explained to us that the mortgage was ours equally and so was the house, and that I didn't hold more ownership than her over either. We were approved quickly and hassle free. This is our first house too. This is in Florida.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "146939b11f6b5588c7c46d9512c63c47", "text": "what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a40eee5445e687b0de14606db987a66", "text": "Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8226861e999d5309617e09affbc81fb2", "text": "\"It's a little unusual, but I don't think the financial terms are completely unreasonable on their face. What you describe is similar to an interest-only loan, where you make payments that only cover the interest due each month, and the entire principal is due as a single \"\"balloon payment\"\" on a specified date (in this case, the date on which the condo is sold). Your monthly payment of $500 on a principal of $115K is equivalent to an annual interest rate of 5.22%, which at least is not completely usurious. With a traditional mortgage you might pay a rate as low as 3%, if you had sufficient income and excellent credit - but I don't know, from what you've said, whether that's the case. Did you make the current arrangement because you were unable to get a loan from a bank? The main difference here is that instead of the balloon payment being a fixed $115K, it's \"\"75% of the gross proceeds of the sale\"\". If the condo eventually sells for $155K, that would be $116,250, so that's slightly advantageous to them (assuming that \"\"gross proceeds\"\" means \"\"before deducting commissions for either the buyers' or sellers' realtors or any other costs of the sale\"\"), and thus slightly disadvantageous to you. If the condo appreciates in value, that's more of a win for them and more of a relative loss for you. But it's also possible that the value of the condo goes down, in which case this arrangement is better for you than a fixed balloon payment. So this deal does prevent you from getting a larger share of any gains in the value of the property, but it also helps insulate you from any losses. That's important to keep in mind. There's also the issue of needing their consent to sell. That's potentially problematic - usually in a joint ownership scheme, either owner has the right to demand to be bought out or to force a sale. I guess it depends on whether you think your parents would be likely to consent under reasonable circumstances, or to insist on holding the property against your best interests. It's true that you aren't building equity with this arrangement, and if you thought you were, you are mistaken or misled. But let's compare it with other options. If you would qualify for a traditional 30-year fixed mortgage at 3%, your monthly payment would be slightly lower ($484), and you would be building some equity because your payments would reduce the principal as well as paying the interest. But a 30-year loan builds equity very slowly at first - after 7 years you'd have only about $20,000 in principal paid down. If we assume that 5.2% represents the interest rate you'd otherwise pay based on your creditworthiness, then your monthly payment would be $631. So compared to that, you have an extra $130 per month that you can save or invest in whatever you want - you're not forced to invest it in your house. Note that in either case you'd still be paying the condo fees, property taxes, insurance, and maintenance yourself. So we might as well eliminate those from consideration. It might be a good idea to find out what other options you would have - perhaps try to get an interest rate quote on a traditional mortgage from a bank, based on your income and credit history. Then you can decide what to do, taking into account: your financial situation; how much of a monthly payment could you afford? your relationship with your parents; are they likely to be reasonable about renegotiating? Do they in general tend to respect your wishes? Would it harm your relationship if you tried to get out of the deal, and how important is that to you? To what extent do you actually want to pay for equity in this property? Do you really believe it's a good investment, and have evidence to support that? Your options include: Try to renegotiate the terms of the loan from your parents Try to \"\"refinance\"\" the loan, by getting a loan from a bank and paying off some agreed-upon amount of principal to your parents Try to force the sale of the condo and move to another house, financing it some other way Consult a lawyer as to whether your agreement with your parents is legally enforceable. For instance, do they have a lien on the property?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ab27f6adec8293954d5fffd3caaefc", "text": "Quite a bit as in, $100K+? If you're a sole operator, not sure what constitutes a real likelihood that a risk of liability will materialize, and in need of a lot of up front financing, I am genuinely concerned that you're going to a lay a giant egg on this one. What is it your business is going to be doing? I don't really want to give a free consultation, but I'm worried you're either misunderstanding something or about to make a mistake, and I don't want to see that happen.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1b4b169ac98e5ea279f867e2cdeb691", "text": "No. And just a caution about that super low risk: suppose that you lived during the late 70s and early 80s, when savers in the United States could get interest rates over 10% for savings. You put your money into an account in 1980, knowing that in five years, you'll have made a solid amount of interest. Except that you might have been smarter to convert your money to AUD and save in that currency because it would have moved from 0.88 in value to 1.43 in value (in principal only, not interest - when I look at the RBA's bank interest, it appears they were also paying double digit interest to savers). Now, I get that this may not be the answer that you want to see because it means that if the interest rates were higher in the US, for savers, they might be higher elsewhere too, and it also means that what may appear to be a super low risk could actually be a high risk.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "0660a055e498255f0629f66e7b8303f2", "text": "\"Tax is often calculated per item. Especially in the days of the internet, some items are taxable and some aren't, depending on the item and your nexus. I would recommend calculating and storing tax with each item, to account for these subtle differences. EDIT: Not sure why this was downvoted, if you don't believe me, you can always check with Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468512_calculated?nodeId=468512#calculated I think they know what they're talking about. FINAL UPDATE: Now, if someone goes to your site, and buys something from your business (in California) and the shipping address for the product is Nevada, then taxes do not have to be collected. If they have a billing address in California, and a shipping address in Nevada, and the goods are shipping to Nevada, you do not have to declare tax. If you have a mixture of tangible (computer, mouse, keyboard) and intangible assets (warranty) in a cart, and the shipping address is in California, you charge tax on the tangible assets, but NOT on the intangible assets. Yes, you can charge tax on the whole order. Yes for most businesses that's \"\"Good enough\"\", but I'm not trying to provide the \"\"good enough\"\" solution, I'm simply telling you how very large businesses run and operate. As I've mentioned, I've done several tax integrations using software called Sabrix (Google if you've not heard of it), and have done those integrations for companies like the BBC and Corbis (owned and operated by Bill Gates). Take it or leave it, but the correct way to charge taxes, especially given the complex tax laws of the US and internationally, is to charge per item. If you just need the \"\"good enough\"\" approach, feel free to calculate it by total. Some additional reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_of_Digital_Goods Another possible federal limitation on Internet taxation is the United States Supreme Court case, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992),[6] which held that under the dormant commerce clause, goods purchased through mail order cannot be subject to a state’s sales tax unless the vendor has a substantial nexus with the state levying the tax. In 1997, the federal government decided to limit taxation of Internet activity for a period of time. The Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) prohibits taxes on Internet access, which is defined as a service that allows users access to content, information, email or other services offered over the Internet and may include access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package offered to customers. The Act has exceptions for taxes levied before the statute was written and for sales taxes on online purchases of physical goods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7eee3defcfeb74a9808a4cca6339b60d", "text": "\"First of all to answer the basic question \"\"Is one method correct? Might it depend on local laws?\"\" Yes it does depend on local laws. Because ultimately the business will have to file forms with the sate/county/city. These forms are going to ask for the total sales based on the tax category (tax free, x%, y%). Each transaction could have parts that fall into each category. The local taxing authority decides what goes into each category. The local taxing authority also determines how often the business needs to submit the taxes. They can even decide to base the rates used by where the customer lives. A business is not required to charge directly for sales tax. That is why frequently at sporting events, the price on the menu notes that all sales taxes are included. I suppose not directly charging a sales tax makes the monthly calculation harder, but the state will still get their money. Rounding up at the end of the entire transaction is enough to make sure they collect enough taxes, so they don't have to dip into their profits.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "974ed9da6e3447681972ae43b6e9b83a", "text": "You should total the items first, to get $3.00, then add the tax, then round up/down accordingly. Your two examples above don't offer this option, even though your second example arrives at the same result. In your first example, a number of items taxed one at a time might result in many .006 results which would round to .01. A long enough list of items would result in an error of many cents depending how many items there are. Totaling first then applying tax results in your saving .004 or losing .005 cents maximum due to rounding. See A Guide to Sales and Use Tax which is a document put out by the Massachusetts Dept of Revenue. In the chart for tax, it shows that $1.09 is taxed at five cents, but at 5%, it would be 5.45. So, at least for this state, I believe I correctly stated the rounding process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7ddaedc3d2c021d60063bc7812ac172", "text": "Taxes should not be calculated at the item level. Taxes should be aggregated by tax group at the summary level. The right way everywhere is LINE ITEMS SUMMARY PS:If you'd charge at the item level, it would be too easy to circumvent the law by splitting your items or services into 900 items at $0.01 (Which once rounded would mean no tax). This could happen in the banking or plastic pellets industry.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "9136a647ab0179c71a5d473f896d3a87", "text": "\"JoeTaxpayer nailed it. Here's another way to look at it: Generally, we invest in something, then might leave it there for a few years, then take it out, but don't touch it in between. In that case, to get the final amount X(N), we need to take the initial amount, then multiply by growth in the first year, then multiply by growth in the second year, etc. So, for three years, we have: X(3) = X(0) * G(1) * G(2) * G(3) = X(0) * \"\"average annual growth\"\" ^ 3 So, here, we see that we want the average annual growth to the power three equal to the product of the annual growth rates, thus, geometric mean: geometric mean = (G(1) * G(2) * G(3)) ^ (1/3) On the other hand, consider a situation where I have three investments X,Y,Z over one year. Now I have, after one year: X(1)+Y(1)+Z(1) = X(0)*G(1,X) + Y(0)*G(1,Y) + Z(0)*G(1,Z) = ( X(0)+Y(0)+Z(0) ) * \"\"average annual growth\"\" Now, in this case, if we assume X(0) = Y(0) = Z(0) = 1, i.e. I put equal amounts in each, we see that the average annual growth rate we want in this case is the arithmetic mean: arithmetic mean = (G(1,X) + G(1,Y) + G(1,Z)) / 3 (if we had unequal amounts at the beginning, it would be a weighted average). TL;DR:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0322d184b8afaede4eb61aef8169642", "text": "\"in the U.S. (for @Software Monkey) books are treated just like any other donation, you look at comparable sales: IRS Link. Sounds like a pain to do each book manually. TurbtoTax has \"\"ItsDeductable\"\" product that suppose to help you calculate the value of donated items.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1041cb736e051ec679ade47727045f5", "text": "\"Yes, this is a miscellaneous itemized deduction. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p529/ar02.html For this to impact your taxes, you have to be itemizing deductions (have total deductions greater than standard deduction), and the total of all miscellaneous deductions needs to exceed the \"\"2% floor\"\" described in the IRS link above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d76b0aa423ae2d10652b65376f7b65d4", "text": "\"I'll assume United States as the country; the answer may (probably does) vary somewhat if this is not correct. Also, I preface this with the caveat that I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant. However, this is my understanding: You must recognize the revenue at the time the credits are purchased (when money changes hands), and charge sales tax on the full amount at that time. This is because the customer has pre-paid and purchased a service (i.e. the \"\"credits\"\", which are units of time available in the application). This is clearly a complete transaction. The use of the credits is irrelevant. This is equivalent to a customer purchasing a box of widgets for future delivery; the payment is made and the widgets are available but have simply not been shipped (and therefore used). This mirrors many online service providers (say, NetFlix) in business model. This is different from the case in which a customer purchases a \"\"gift card\"\" or \"\"reloadable debit card\"\". In this case, sales tax is NOT collected (because this is technically not a purchase). Revenue is also not booked at this time. Instead, the revenue is booked when the gift card's balance is used to pay for a good or service, and at that time the tax is collected (usually from the funds on the card). To do otherwise would greatly complicate the tax basis (suppose the gift card is used in a different state or county, where sales tax is charged differently? Suppose the gift card is used to purchase a tax-exempt item?) For justification, see bankruptcy consideration of the two cases. In the former, the customer has \"\"ownership\"\" of an asset (the credits), which cannot be taken from him (although it might be unusable). In the latter, the holder of the debit card is technically an unsecured creditor of the company - and is last in line if the company's assets are liquidated for repayment. Consider also the case where the cost of the \"\"credits\"\" is increased part-way through the year (say, from $10 per credit to $20 per credit) or if a discount promotion is applied (buy 5 credits, get one free). The customer has a \"\"tangible\"\" item (one credit) which gets the same functionality regardless of price. This would be different if instead of \"\"credits\"\" you instead maintain an \"\"account\"\" where the user deposited $1000 and was billed for usage; in this case you fall back to the \"\"gift card\"\" scenario (but usage is charged at the current rate) and revenue is booked when the usage is purchased; similarly, tax is collected on the purchase of the service. For this model to work, the \"\"credit\"\" would likely have to be refundable, and could not expire (see gift cards, above), and must be usable on a variety of \"\"services\"\". You may have particular responsibility in the handling of this \"\"deposit\"\" as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e65791fa9fc4c61ce5ac8ca1133684", "text": "Simple. Say in 2012 you were up 50% (brilliant) but then in 2013 you were down 50% (sorry). i.e. if you started with $1000, you were up to $1500, then down to $750. You lost $250 overall. If you were to compute the mean of the percentages using each method, then: Arithmetic mean: The average of +50% and -50% (really 150% and 50% of each period's initial value) is zero, not up or down. Geometric mean: 1.5 * .5 = .75, i.e. you are down 25% over 2 years, or about 13.4% per year. It should be clear the Geometric makes more sense in such a case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f25fc1100906dad3d175ba50a5c3a5c", "text": "TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31594816af776ae31246dff47b57b5a2", "text": "Your 1&2 are the end of that chapter. You can't convert for that year again, and must wait 30 days to convert in the new tax year. For example, each year for over a decade, I've helped my mother in law with this. In May, we convert a chunk of money/stock to Roth. In April, I'll recharacterize just enough so she tops off her 15% bracket but doesn't hit 25%. 30 days later, the new conversion happens. All the Roth money is money now taxed at 15%, which, in an emergency, a need for a lot of cash, will avoid the potential of 25% or higher, tax. You see, your 3 never really happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d17d924c5b82e1f761143e2f7cd919da", "text": "\"There is no numerical convention in finance that I have ever seen. If you look at statements or reports that measure growth when the starting value is negative or zero, you typically see \"\"n/a\"\" or \"\"-\"\" or \"\"*\"\" as the result. Any numerical result would be meaningless. Suppose you used 100% and another company had a legitimate 150% gain - where would the 100% change rank? What do my manager and investors expect to see? As a financial analyst - I would not want to see 100%. I would instead rather see something that indicates that the % change is meaningless. As an example, here's the WSJ documentation on change in Net Income: Net Income percent change is the change from the same period from a year ago. Percent change is not provided if either the latest period or the year-ago period contains a net loss. Thinking about it in another context: Yesterday you and your friend had no apples. Today you have 1 and your friend has 20. What percentage increase did you both have? Did you both have a 100% increase? How can you indicate that your friend had a larger \"\"increase\"\"? In that case (and in finance), the context needs to turn from a percentage increase to an absolute increase. A percentage increase is that scenario is meaningless.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b36305cf5bd1204e47a99690160c354", "text": "The vendor needs to do this using apportionment, according to the VAT rules for mixed supplies: If you make mixed supplies and the individual supplies are not liable to VAT at the same rate then you need to work out the tax value of each supply in order to calculate how much tax is due. If the tax value is based on the total price you charge (see paragraph 7.3) you do this by splitting that price between the supplies. This is called an apportionment ... There is no special method of apportionment ... However, your calculations must be fair and you must be able to justify them. It is usually best to use one of the methods shown in section 32. The section 32 referred to really relates to apportioning use between business and non-business purposes, but it implies that splitting up the total price in proportion to the original prices would probably be fair. So in your example the vendor might split the £5 discount equally between the spoon and the carrycot as they had the same gross cost, and pay VAT as if each had cost £7.50 gross. The vendor could also do it in proportion to their net (pre-VAT) prices and thus apportion a bit more of the discount to the carrycot than the spoon, but as this would lead to them paying slightly more tax overall they probably wouldn't choose to. However, none of this is likely to be too relevant to a consumer, since in the UK prices must be presented as the gross (VAT-inclusive) amounts and so the discounts will also apply to those amounts. It will of course affect how much of the purchase price the vendor ends up paying on to the government and thus might indirectly affect what discounts the vendor is willing to offer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe49f26f27ffe70f80550ff0b9d841a", "text": "\"Payment gateways such as Square do not normally withhold tax. It is up to you to pay the appropriate tax at tax time. That having been said, Square does report your payments to the IRS on a form 1099-K if your payments are large enough. According to Square, you'll get a 1099-K from them if your total payments for the year add up to $20,000 AND more than 200 transactions. Whether or not they report on a 1099-K, you are required to pay the appropriate taxes on your income. So now the question becomes, \"\"Do I have to pay income tax on the proceeds from my garage sale?\"\" And the answer to that question is usually not. When you sell something that you previously purchased, if you sell it for more than you paid for it, you have a capital gain and need to pay tax on that. However, generally you sell things in a garage sale at a loss, meaning that there is no tax due. If you make more than $20,000 at your garage sale and the IRS gets a 1099-K, the IRS might be curious as to how you did that with no capital gain. So if you sell any big ticket items (a bulldozer, for example), you should keep a record of what you paid for it, so you can show the loss to the IRS in the event of an audit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36da6bde98ebe39b832a27c95b80a17e", "text": "\"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06724d4ce9c252533e99ccea2c29973c", "text": "If I is the initial deposit, P the periodic deposit, r the rent per period, n the number of periods, and F the final value, than we can combine two formulas into one to get the following answer: F = I*(1+r)n + P*[(1+r)n-1]/r In this case, you get V = 1000*(1.05)20 + 100*[(1.05)20-1]/0.05 = 5959.89 USD. Note that the actual final value may be lower because of rounding errors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7fd2ab75b51e221d3095eeb756341c", "text": "So for quarters So, if Q1's value was 10 and Q2's value was 25 For closing or opening prices, I would use closing prices. For instance, some used Adjusted Close or Close on Yahoo Finance (see this example of AAPL). Added Note: In your example, for your example, you'll want to take the absolute value of the denominator (aka: divisor), so an Excel formula might look like the below example ... ... where the new and old are cells.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acfd957236e4e0b5a3ca51e6a9fd99e6", "text": "Apparently it's based on either the address of the seller or vendor or your shipping address; from the AccurateTax.com blog post Destination and Origin Based Sales Tax: ... a few states have laws that are origin-based, where products that are shipped to the customer are taxed based on the location of the business itself. As of this writing, these states are Most states use destination-based sales tax, which defines the source of the transaction to be the destination at which the product will eventually be used, or the address to which the product is shipped. ... The following states [and districts] operate on a destination-based model at the time of this writing: The page Do I Charge Sales Tax or Not? from about.com seems to (somewhat) clarify that if the business is located in a state (or other jurisdiction) with an origin-based sales tax, then they will charge you the sales tax for their state and, presumably, not the sales tax for the state of the shipping address.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "398402f51ec457500408822627b1c4f2", "text": "Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d90b5501dc00d0d5a1a79c878c6279d1", "text": "Several factors are considered in loans as significant as a home mortgage. I believe the most major factors are 1) Credit report, 2) Income, and 3) Employment status If you borrow jointly, all joint factors are included, not just the favorable ones. Some wrinkles this can cause may include: Credit Report - The second person on the loan may have poor credit or no credit. This can/will hurt your rate or even prevent them from being listed on the loan at all, which will also mean you can't include their income. In addition, there are future consequences: that any late payments, default, foreclosure, etc. will be listed on all borrower's reports. If you both have solid work history, great credit, and want to jointly own the home, then there shouldn't be any negatives. If this is not the case, compare both cases (fully, not just rates, as some agents could sneakily say you can get the same rate either way but then not tell you closing costs in one scenario are higher), and pick the one that is best overall. This is just information from my recollection so make sure to verify and ask plenty of questions, don't go forward on assumptions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6992373f1b09191f18ab3bef9dc26b8", "text": "The bank will consider total of both parties income for the loan qualification. Provided both parties will be listed on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "191114aa87beae0c543c032e10e7c271", "text": "It might be worth talking to a mortgage broker, even if you don't actually end up doing business with them. Upfront Mortgage Brokers explained Finding an upfront broker near you In a nutshell, upfront brokers disclose what they are paid for their services openly and transparently. Many brokers don't, and you can't be too careful. But a consultation should be free. An experienced broker can help you to navigate the pros and cons mentioned by the other responders. Personally, I would never do business with a broker who can't/won't show me a rate sheet on the day of the lock. That's my personal acid test. You might be surprised by what the broker has to say regarding your situation. That was my experience, anyway.", "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": "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": "2cd417b896d953ed5d5f667607a01b85", "text": "There is no issue - and no question - if you get married. The question is only relevant in the event that you go separate ways. Should that happen, you imply that you would want to refund whatever amount your girlfriend has paid toward the mortgage. The solution, then, would seem to be to exempt her from any payments, as you will either give that money back to her (if you break up) or make her a co-owner of the condo (if you get married). If you actually need her contributions to the monthly nut, you could give her a written agreement whereby you would refund her money (plus interest) at her discretion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c586d75c50139784c3060279ab46c069", "text": "Myself and my partner do things a little differently to most. We split accommodation and utilities payments by net income proportion to ensure that we both have the same amount of spending money. For example; The really important bit is net income. We take off a whole bunch of payments, e.g; Our contributions go into a joint account and the rest is our money to spend. The upshot is that we both get to enjoy the same minimum quality of life because we both get the same amount to spend at the bar.", "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": "d41d68ada443c126523e4d6cddd74138", "text": "Idk if I would ask on reddit, personal finance will tell you the only way is joint bank accounts and relationship advice will tell you to break up. Personally I will always want my own bank account, with a joint account for a mortgage or utilities. I think it depends on if you are both financially savvy, if one of you aren't you might want to have a joint account to keep an eye on spending. I think this site give you a good pro/con: https://www.thebalance.com/should-you-have-joint-or-separate-bank-accounts-1289664", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22f551971d12e3540a68eb3a2b08b774", "text": "Generally speaking, granting rights to one bank account (e.g. making a joint account) does not extend rights to other accounts or otherwise let one joint owner create new obligations on the other owner (e.g. opening a line of credit that the other owner must pay for), except to the extent of the joint account. I assume there are no UK rules that would change this feature. The other party can of course withdraw all the money without need for your approval. This also means that the joint account could be exposed to all the creditors of either party. If your account joint tenant has huge debts, the creditors could theoretically look to the joint account for satisfaction. At least, that would be an issue under US law. Frankly, it may be simpler to get a separate account for the other person (if possible) and make transfers with online banking. It could also make sense to get a rechargeable banking card, if those are in the UK, which works like a debit card and can be reloaded through various means (sometimes a call, sometimes online deposits, sometimes in physical stores). There may be fees to getting such a card or a second account, of course. The benefit is that the cardholder has no access to your account and you control recharging. Such cards are widely available in the US to people who otherwise would not qualify for traditional bank accounts. Note also the FATCA complication with adding a US person to your account. My understanding is that a number of non-US banks will simply close the accounts of Americans, rather than deal with FFI hassles under FATCA.", "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": "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": "2c0081f11b746bf57c7e9a1076671560", "text": "Basically, what you describe exists in many countries - not in the USA though. In Europe, people have checking accounts with allowed overdraft, typically three month net salaries. You can just this money any day as you like, and pay it back - completely or partially - any day as you like. Interest is calculated for each day on the amount used that day; and the collateral is 'future income', predicted / expected from previous income. In the USA, credit cards have taken its place, with stricter different rules and limitations. In addition, many of the extra rules in loans were invented to take advantage of the ignorance or situation of the borrower to make even more money. For example, applying extra payments to future due payments instead of to the principal makes that principal produce more interest while the extra payments just sit around.", "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": "f3c3d8a0e3e2f1fc4a8f716e438da535", "text": "After more than 30 years of married life the only thing that has worked is to partner with someone who is your opposite. I am a saver, my wife is a spender. Each pay period we establish a budget. Only those things to which we both agree go into the budget. If we violate the budget the other one holds the violator accountable. Be sure to put some 'slop' into the budget, you cannot perfectly predict the future. The budget can, and will, change throughout the pay period, but only if both agree to the change.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f4799662e6609d40e0197bf2d5d1714", "text": "Other than the two answers (both of which recommend waiting until marriage to actually combine finances, and which I agree with), there's the general question: how does a couple choose to manage finances? In our marriage, it's me. I'm more numbers-minded than my spousal-unit. I'm also more a sticker for time. I work and spousal-unit does not. We had some good friends -- upon marriage, spouse1 felt like he should take on the role. He went on a several-week trip (leaving spouse2 at home), and upon returning home asked spouse2 about the late fees. Spouse2 was appalled. Spouse2 ended up keeping the job of managing household finances. There's enough pieces to the puzzle that it can be divided any way you choose -- any way that works for you and your spouse/virtual-spouse. One other point: talk about how to manage your money, before you marry. Dave Ramsey recommends a strict monthly budget. I like listening to Dave Ramsey, but we've never had a budget. Instead, we agreed during marriage counseling two things:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9021ee044ffe953dad127d98ff65fa9e", "text": "\"I don't think it would be counted as income, and if it's a short-term loan it doesn't really matter as the notional interest on the loan would be negligible. But you can avoid any possible complications by just having two accounts in the name of the person trying to get the account benefits, particularly if you're willing to just provide the \"\"seed\"\" money to get the loop started.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08bddd891e22c3d1673a1357cb9e00c9", "text": "I am in Australia, but I think the banks in the UK would use similar wrkings. Your options 1 and 2 are basically no. Why would the bank consider your wife to be paying you rent when you live together. These are the type of practices that led to the GFC, and since then practices have been tightened. Regarding option 3, yes banks do take into consideration rent in their analysis of your loan. However, they would not include the full rent in their calculations, but about 70% to 75% of the full rent. This allows for loss of rent during vacant periods and adds a safety factor in their caluclations. But they will not include the rent itself, you would have to have other income as well to support your loan. Saying that, we do have Low Doc Loans in Australia (loans with little documentation required to get a loan). With these loans you basically have to make a declaration that you are telling the truth regarding your income sources and you can only usually borrow a lower LVR as these loans are seen as a bigger risk. These type of loans have also been tightened up since the GFC.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "3b24411e84ecc56597e67ce068060d8d", "text": "It is a bit more complicated than whether it pays more or less dividends. You should make your decision based on how well the company is performing both fundamentally and technically. Concentrating mainly on the fundamental performance for this question, most good and healthy companies make enough profits to both pay out dividends and invest back into the company to keep growing the company and profits. In fact a good indication of a well performing company is when their dividend per share and earnings per share are both growing each year and the dividends per share are less than the earnings per share (that way you know dividends are being paid out from new profits and not existing cash holdings). This information can give you an indication of both a stable and growing company. I would rather invest in a company that pays little or no dividends but is increasing profits and growing year after year than a company that pays higher dividends but its profits are decreasing year after year. How long will the company continue to pay dividends for, if it starts making less and less profits to pay them with? You should never invest in a company solely because they pay dividends, if you do you will end up losing money. It is no use making $1 in dividends if you lose $2+ because the share price drops. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more for a stable and growing company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92388431b9fc8ad3f676a1f056912571", "text": "Let's say two companies make 5% profit every year. Company A pays 5% dividend every year, but company B pays no dividend but grows its business by 5%. (And both spend the money needed to keep the business up-to-date, that's before profits are calculated). You are right that with company B, the company will grow. So if you had $1000 shares in each company, after 20 years company A has given you $1000 in dividends and is worth $1000, while company B has given you no dividends, but is worth a lot more than $2000, $2653 if my calculation is right. Which looks a lot better than company A. However, company A has paid $50 every year, and if you put that money into a savings account giving 5% interest, you would make exactly the same money either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed058f7de8d238c01c3ce90f9ae86b7", "text": "\"Someone (I forget who) did a study on classifying total return by the dividend profiles. In descending order by category, the results were as follows: 1) Growing dividends. These tend to be moderate yielders, say 2%-3% a year in today's markets. Because their dividends are starting from a low level, the growth of dividends is much higher than stocks in the next category. 2) \"\"Flat\"\" dividends. These tend to be higher yielders, 5% and up, but growing not at all, like interest on bonds, or very slowly (less than 2%-3% a year). 3) No dividends. A \"\"neutral\"\" posture. 4) Dividend cutters. Just \"\"bad news.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "db351fb142066f802e9dfed69b44acb6", "text": "In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff6a6b8b9211bde03bed2c76076b87f7", "text": "Usually when a company is performing well both its share price and its dividends will increase over the medium to long term. Similarly, if the company is performing badly both the share price and dividends will fall over time. If you want to invest in higher dividend stocks over the medium term, you should look for companies that are performing well fundamentally and technically. Choose companies that are increasing earnings and dividends year after year and with earnings per share greater than dividends per share. Choose companies with share prices increasing over time (uptrending). Then once you have purchased your portfolio of high dividend stocks place a trailing stop loss on them. For a timeframe of 1 to 3 years I would choose a trailing stop loss of 20%. This means that if the share price continues going up you keep benefiting from the dividends and increasing share price, but if the share price drops by 20% below the recent high, then you get automatically taken out of that stock, leaving your emotions out of it. This will ensure your capital is protected over your investment timeframe and that you will profit from both capital growth and rising dividends from your portfolio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e05a30c4c2dd0cf27738493f5d1a2b47", "text": "This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa896ef199e1088f7bdc3a379dbc2767", "text": "Less shares outstanding means that, holding the dividend per share constant you would have a lower total dividend expenditure. The more likely outcome is that, if you want to return capital to shareholders through a dividend, you just pay a higher amount per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e3c8d461b7b18ae5317d268334ae9b0", "text": "Dividend Stocks like any stock carry risk and go both up and down. It is important to choose a stock based on the company's potential and performance. And, if they pay a dividend it does help. -RobF", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a13a5183fa18ad97d0487ffeb6827fd9", "text": "\"is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index. Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them. Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these \"\"duds\"\". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now. But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month. No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate. Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion. Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income. If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years. The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers. (Amongst many other possible measures.) They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years. Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example. There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old. Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses. Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better. I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments. Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former. In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns. Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio. Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07bfc4bf7cdff666fb929873475d0159", "text": "Large companies whose shares I was looking at had dividends of the order of ~1-2%, such as 0.65%, or 1.2% or some such. My savings account provides me with an annual return of 4% as interest. Firstly inflation, interest increases the numeric value of your bank balance but inflation reduces what that means in real terms. From a quick google it looks like inflation in india is currently arround 6% so your savings account is losing 2% in real terms. On the other hand you would expect a stable company to maintain a similar value in real terms. So the dividend can be seen as real terms income. Secondly investors generally hope that their companies will not merely be stable but grow in value over time. Whether that hope is rational is another question. Why not just invest in options instead for higher potential profits? It's possible to make a lot of money this way. It's also possible to lose a lot of money this way. If your knowlage of money is so poor you don't even understand why people buy stocks there is no way you should be going near the more complicated financial products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4f52a70a3ab8bb2cfc60c534f5106", "text": "Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae148a4b9aca1e2103a1c57a04f56f16", "text": "This is great, thank you. Can you think of any cases where expected return is greater than interest payments (like in #2) but the best choice would still be raise money through equity issuing? My intuition tells me this may be possible for an expensive company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12ba592d2f049943973920988ce2b57c", "text": "The general difference between high dividend paying stocks and growth stocks is as follows: 1) A high dividend paying stock/company is a company that has reached its maximum growth potential in a market and its real growth (that is after adjustment of inflation) is same (more or less) as the growth of the economy. These companies typically generate a lot of cash (Cash Cow) and has nowhere to really invest the entire thing, so they pay high dividends. Typically Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) ,Power/Utility companies, Textile (in some countries) come into this category. If you invest in these stocks, expect less growth but more dividend; these companies generally come under 'defensive sector' of the market i.e. whose prices do not fall drastically during down turn in a market. 2) Growth stocks on the other hand are the stocks that are operating in a market that is witnessing rapid growth, for example, technology, aerospace etc. These companies have high growth potential but not much accumulated income as the profit is re-invested to support the growth of the company, so no dividend (you will be typically never get any/much dividend from these companies). These companies usually (for some years) grow (or at least has potential to grow) more than the economy and provide real return. Usually these companies are very sensitive to results (good or bad) and their prices are quite volatile. As for your investment strategy, I cannot comment on that as investment is a very subjective matter. Hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03b5874b3cdae035a4a2bfba3261aedd", "text": "Dividends indicate that a business is making more profit than it can effectively invest into expansion or needs to regulate cash-flow. This generally indicates that the business is well established and has stabilized in a dominant market position. This can be contrasted against businesses that: Dividends are also given preferential tax treatment. Specifically, if I buy a stock and sell it 30 days later, I will be taxed on the capital gains at the regular income rate (typically 25-33%), but the dividends would be taxed at the lower long-term capital gains rate (typically 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2644f6e1393dd5456a5622d75f2ca7f", "text": "Yep, there just is no free lunch. So called high dividend stocks are usually from companies that have stable cash flows but relatively little or moderate growth potential. Utility companies come to mind, let's take telecommunications as an example. Such stocks, usually, indeed are considered more conservative. In a bull market, they won't make high jumps, and in a bear market they shouldn't experience deep falls. I mean, just because the stock market fell by 10%, you're not going to stop using your phone. The stock might suffer a bit but the divided is still yielding you the same. However, fundamental data can have a significant impact. Let's say a recession hits the country of the telco. People might not get the newest iPhone and lock in to an expensive contract anymore, they might use cheaper forms of communication, they might stop paying bills, go bankrupt etc. This will have a severe impact on the company's cash flow and thus hit the stock in a double whammy: One, the dividend is gone. Two, the price will fall even further. There are basically two scenarios after that. Either the recession is temporary and your stock became a regular growth stock that at some point might bounce back and re-establish at the previous levels. Or the economy has contracted permanently but regained stability in which case you will again have a stock with a high dividend yield but based on a lower price. In conclusion: High dividend stocks make sense in a portfolio. But never consider their income to be safe. Reduce your risk by diversifying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef5f93bc5a831258afd86f1561b402ba", "text": "\"The difference between dividend and growth in mutual funds has to do with the types of stocks the mutual fund invests in. Typically a company in the early stages are considered growth investments. In this phase the company needs to keep most of its profits to reinvest in the business. Typically once a company gets a significant size the company's growth prospects are not as good so the company pays some of its profits in the form of a dividend to the shareholders. As far as which is the best buy is totally a personal choice. There will be times when one is better then the other. Most likely you will want to \"\"diversify\"\" and invest in both types.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22dfc1874b671568caacf18252b7cbd0", "text": "Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f55bb3f3499c894a67cb3c1ac0d20ce", "text": "If you assume the market is always 100% rational and accurate and liquid, then it doesn't matter very much if a company pays dividends, other than how dividends are taxed vs. capital gains. (If the market is 100% accurate and liquid, it also doesn't really matter what stock you buy, since they are all fairly priced, other than that you want the stock to match your risk tolerance). However, if you manage to find an undervalued company (which, as an investor, is what you are trying to do), your investment skill won't pay off much until enough other people notice the company's value, which might take a long time, and you might end up wanting to sell before it happens. But if the company pays dividends, you can, slowly, get value from your investment no matter what the market thinks. (Of course, if it's really undervalued then you would often, but not always, want to buy more of it anyway). Also, companies must constantly decide whether to reinvest the money in themselves or pay out dividends to owners. As an owner, there are some cases in which you would prefer the company invest in itself, because you think they can do better with it then you can. However, there is a decided tendency for C level employees to be more optimistic in this regard than their owners (perhaps because even sub-market quality investments expand the empires of the executives, even when they hurt the owners). Paying dividends is thus sometimes a sign that a company no longer has capital requirements intense enough that it makes sense to re-invest all of its profits (though having that much opportunity can be a good thing, sometimes), and/or a sign that it is willing, to some degree, to favor paying its owners over expanding the business. As a current or prospective owner, that can be desirable. It's also worth mentioning that, since stocks paying dividends are likely not in the middle of a fast growth phase and are producing profit in excess of their capital needs, they are likely slower growth and lower risk as a class than companies without dividends. This puts them in a particular place on the risk/reward spectrum, so some investors may prefer dividend paying stocks because they match their risk profile.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "03c7415a5969d6c021a0c81d9c57676a", "text": "\"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc585b7ea27021993ff665a62115bb94", "text": "\"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0643397497e4dc64d752d89cd18058c", "text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "538ece1cb47d6e7c0109010d20252cfd", "text": "Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06c49498d63d86b623e896d1fc942919", "text": "I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "1f982eee1eda1e2eca54177a51801642", "text": "This was all luck, that amount of leverage will destroy your account in a single bad trade. You profit is way less than it should be because you are getting killed on fees. Take a look at the bitcoin trade, you should have 2,157.30 in profit but you only have 1825.42. And your currency trades were consistently positions that were worth $400,000 dollars, where you were pulling out ~$50 in profits, even though they should have been ~$80 profits. You are consistently getting 30% less than you should be, and consistently betting waaaaay bigger amounts than you account can really handle. Bad trades will probably have 30% greater losses than actual, and when the market moves the wrong direction then a single position will wipe out your account. Yes, you could have just bought bitcoin and gotten great profits. You totally nailed the directions of the markets! It is just a matter of time before you blow up, the trailing profits won't always help you when the market starts going down first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5232351523ed97263862c5fdb0f90727", "text": "Its the relative leverage available to retail traders between the two. In the US one can trade equities with 2:1 leverage while with commodities the leverage can go much higher. Combine this with the highly volatile nature of commodities, and it makes losing BIG too easy for the average trader.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "804df9dc0c69154c6660f3af9969ff6c", "text": "\"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d91739afcb1f6db012efe56d20c0d6a", "text": "I wouldn't use it to take leverage unless you don't mind loosing your entire investment (this is a possibility as shares are already quite volatile). However, you don't have to take leverage and still trade CFDs. Benefits of doing so: Disadvantages:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e6e328ddefd77d0000e46e8212a7af", "text": "To answer your original question: There is proof out there. Here is a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis that might be worth a read. It has a lot of references to other publications that might help answer your question(s) about TA. You can probably read the whole article then research some of the other ones listed there to come up with a conclusion. Below are some excerpts: Abstract: This article introduces the subject of technical analysis in the foreign exchange market, with emphasis on its importance for questions of market efficiency. “Technicians” view their craft, the study of price patterns, as exploiting traders’ psychological regularities. The literature on technical analysis has established that simple technical trading rules on dollar exchange rates provided 15 years of positive, risk-adjusted returns during the 1970s and 80s before those returns were extinguished. More recently, more complex and less studied rules have produced more modest returns for a similar length of time. Conventional explanations that rely on risk adjustment and/or central bank intervention do not plausibly justify the observed excess returns from following simple technical trading rules. Psychological biases, however, could contribute to the profitability of these rules. We view the observed pattern of excess returns to technical trading rules as being consistent with an adaptive markets view of the world. and The widespread use of technical analysis in foreign exchange (and other) markets is puzzling because it implies that either traders are irrationally making decisions on useless information or that past prices contain useful information for trading. The latter possibility would contradict the “efficient markets hypothesis,” which holds that no trading strategy should be able to generate unusual profits on publicly available information—such as past prices—except by bearing unusual risk. And the observed level of risk-adjusted profitability measures market (in)efficiency. Therefore much research effort has been directed toward determining whether technical analysis is indeed profitable or not. One of the earliest studies, by Fama and Blume (1966), found no evidence that a particular class of TTRs could earn abnormal profits in the stock market. However, more recent research by Brock, Lakonishok and LeBaron (1992) and Sullivan, Timmermann an d White (1999) has provided contrary evidence. And many studies of the foreign exchange market have found evidence that TTRs can generate persistent profits (Poole 6 (1967), Dooley and Shafer (1984), Sweeney (1986), Levich and Thomas (1993), Neely, Weller and Dittmar (1997), Gençay (1999), Lee, Gleason and Mathur (2001) and Martin (2001)).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1f22eaf15339096f3355287cd19ce8", "text": "\"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f68f47fbd9b39e55236bab0b0720c9dd", "text": "Don't like HFT? Use a stock exchange or dealer network that only allows manually entered trades. I hope readers are not convinced by this article to support the enactment of regulations that prevent people from using HFT. Maybe he's right and HFT is detrimental (which I doubt), but this is something that should be decided by the free market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d62e3a39316e279e4ee8a1655d33359f", "text": "\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e81a16d71ce9afded1354fb5f5592f9", "text": "\"It looks like these types of companies have to disclose the health of their accounts to CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). That is the gist I get at least from this article about the traders that lost money due to the Swiss removing the franc’s cap against the euro. The article says about the U.S. retail FOREX brokerage: Most of FXCM’s retail clients lost money in 2014, according to the company’s disclosures mandated by the CFTC. The percentage of losing accounts climbed from 67 percent in the first and second quarters to 68 percent in the third quarter and 70 percent in the fourth quarter. Side note: The Swiss National Bank abandoned the cap on the currency's value against the euro in mid-January 2015. But above paragraph provides data on FXCM’s retail clients in 2014. It could consequently be concluded that, even without \"\"freak events\"\" (such as Switzerland removing the franc cap), it is more likely for an investor to NOT make a profit on the FOREX market. This is also in line with what \"\"sdfasdf\"\" and \"\"Dario Fumagalli\"\" say in their answers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ea51041cbb14ef2276388529ab024ee", "text": "Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7f2391e31ce498b64165c6829fe0da9", "text": "\"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9073fe66e32efa5077a99658e8e018e5", "text": "What you are asking about is called Interest Rate Parity. Or for a longer explanation the article Interest Rate Parity at Wikipedia. If the US has a rate of say zero, and the rate in Elbonia is 10%, one believes that in a year the exchange rate will be shifted by 10%, i.e. it will take 1.1 unit of their currency to get the dollars one unit did prior. Else, you'd always profit from such FOREX trades. (Disclaimer - I am not claiming this to be true or false, just offering one theory that explains the rate difference effect on future exchange rates.", "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": "87b57a3b64f2c884c0315b92c571e274", "text": "\"This advanced forex trading course allows forex traders to tracking intra-day banking activity in the forex market. Learn to trade forex using the trading secrets of the mega banks. These forex trading strategies will allow struggling retail traders to follow the \"\"footprint in the sand\"\" left by the mega banks, rather than getting ran over by them like most day traders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38983f5811ca126fbb64a7d8027e265a", "text": "Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly. The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated. That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well. In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy. In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars. Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years). I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market. Seems pretty easy, right ?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "847ec3502d4bba1350c0a140e560d07c", "text": "Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "a6836e3ee612b5edaa4d1ad8008ede62", "text": "My memory served me correctly. I remember this because it was on my Series 7, so that link is misleading if you are studying for the 7. Here is the exception: &gt; Transactions to Which the Rule is Not Applicable (Proposed FINRA Rule 2121(d)) Consistent with the initial proposal, FINRA Rule 2121(d) provides that FINRA Rule 2121 is not applicable to: (1) **the sale of securities where a prospectus** or offering circular must be delivered and the securities are sold at the specific public offering price, based on NASD IM-2440-1(d); and (2) a transaction in a non-investment grade debt security with a QIB that meets the conditions set forth in proposed FINRA Rule 2122(b)(9), which is described below. If you're studying for the 7, you will know that every mutual fund sale requires the delivery of a prospectus.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7c6dd68f11e43b59b0781486252ba82", "text": "No, it doesn't work like this. Your charitable contribution is limited to the FMV. In your scenario your charitable contribution is limited by the FMV, i.e.: you can only deduct the worth of the stocks. It would be to your advantage to sell the stocks and donate cash. Had your stock appreciated, you may be required to either deduct the appreciation amount from the donation deduction or pay capital gains tax (increasing your basis to the FMV), depending on the nature of your donation. In many cases - you may be able to deduct the whole value of the appreciated stock without paying capital gains. Read the link below for more details and exceptions. In this scenario, it is probably more beneficial to donate the stock (even if required to pay the capital gains tax), instead of selling and donating cash (which will always trigger the capital gains tax). Exceptions. However, in certain situations, you must reduce the fair market value by any amount that would have been long-term capital gain if you had sold the property for its fair market value. Generally, this means reducing the fair market value to the property's cost or other basis. You must do this if: The property (other than qualified appreciated stock) is contributed to certain private nonoperating foundations, You choose the 50% limit instead of the special 30% limit for capital gain property, discussed later, The contributed property is intellectual property (as defined earlier under Patents and Other Intellectual Property ), The contributed property is certain taxidermy property as explained earlier, or The contributed property is tangible personal property (defined earlier) that: Is put to an unrelated use (defined later) by the charity, or Has a claimed value of more than $5,000 and is sold, traded, or otherwise disposed of by the qualified organization during the year in which you made the contribution, and the qualified organization has not made the required certification of exempt use (such as on Form 8282, Donee Information Return, Part IV). See also Recapture if no exempt use , later. See more here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f94d44078540e4975937396e59a5facd", "text": "\"I did a little research and found the eligible investments for TFSAs. In this document under heading \"\"Shares of private and other corporations\"\", sub heading \"\"Shares of small business corporations\"\" there is clause about owning less than 10% share and less than $25000 total value of the corporation. Generally, a connected shareholder of a corporation (as defined in subsection 4901(2) of > the Regulations) at any time is a person who owns, directly or indirectly, at that time, 10% or more of the shares of any class of shares of the corporation or of any other corporation related to the corporation. However, where • such a person is dealing at arm's length with the corporation or any other related corporation; and • the aggregate cost amount of all shares of the corporation or any other related corporation the person owns, or is deemed to own, is less than $25,000 that person will not be a connected shareholder of the corporation. For purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests, the rules in the definition of ìspecified shareholderî in subsection 248(1) apply with the result that certain shares will be deemed to be owned by the shareholder. For example, by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, of that definition, an annuitant, a beneficiary or a subscriber under a plan trust is deemed to own the shares owned by a person with whom the annuitant, beneficiary or subscriber is not dealing at armís length, as well as the shares owned by the plan trust. In addition, any share that • the annuitant, beneficiary, or subscriber under a plan trust; or • a person not dealing at arm's length with any of the above has a right to acquire is also included in the calculation of the percentage and cost amount of the shares held for purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests pursuant to subsection 4901(2.2) of the Regulations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5b994a25ca09a67f011ce562354c85e", "text": "\"I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview. Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, \"\"Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!\"\" Okay, now after the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments. Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc. There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acff7526aae2b84408778f98027f005", "text": "1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1 million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings. In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing. In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices. I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies. A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19c215406af14db05a1acffe9423ae75", "text": "Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c02e759961fc1045b5c3846be9ea8436", "text": "The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ea060c6609dda916ca73e499a6d44a5", "text": "A company generally sells a portion of its ownership in an IPO, with existing investors retaining some ownership. In your example, they believe that the entire company is worth $25MM, so in order to raise $3MM it is issuing stock representing 12% of the ownership stake (3/25), which dilutes some or all of the existing stockholders' claims.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead718688f897093ee037a805e51a8eb", "text": "As an NRI there are certain limitations as well as benefits. Limitation in terms of holding a specified quantity of shares in company, thus the need to open new account, so that Bank can track the holding and inform regulator. Benfits in terms of able to reptriate any amount of funds from trades in this account. In order to ease this, there are 2 Accounts NRO demat account (Non PINS): Essentially this does not automatically allow for reptration of funds [like NRE] but its more like NRO, amount upto USD 1 million per year. NRO Demat account PINS: Here you can buy fresh shares and take the proceeds out of country without any limits. So in short, you would need an NRO Demat NON PINS Account. Transfer your existing shares here. Sell whenever you like. Open a NRO Demat PINS account, if you wish to buy more with status as NRI, if you don't wish you buy, there is no need for this account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c271dc160cc14046b923589c6d17ed7", "text": "You should ask the bank supplying the SBA loan about the % of ownership that is required to personally guarantee the loan. Different banks give different figures, but I believe the last time I heard about this it was 20% or more owners must personally guarantee the loan. Before you spend a lot of money on legal fees drawing up a complicated scheme of shares, ask the bank what they require. Make sure you speak with an underwriter since many service people don't know the rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efb02741e131bbeb35fabd25c9d5edb7", "text": "\"I have received a response from SIPC, confirming littleadv's answer: For a brief background, the protections available under the Securities Investor Protection Act (\"\"SIPA\"\"), are only available in the context of a liquidation proceeding of a SIPC member broker-dealer and relate to the \"\"custody\"\" of securities and related cash at the SIPC member broker-dealer. Thus, if a SIPC member broker-dealer were to fail at a time when a customer had securities and/or cash in the custody of the SIPC member broker-dealer, in most instances it would be SIPC's obligation to restore those securities and cash to the customer, within statutory limits. That does not mean, however, that the customer would necessarily receive the original value of his or her purchase. Rather, the customer receives the security itself and/or the value of the customer's account as of the day that the liquidation commenced. SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of any security. In a liquidation proceeding under the SIPA, SIPC may advance up to $500,000 per customer (including a $250,000 limit on cash in the account). Please note that this protection only applies to the extent that you entrust cash or securities to a U.S. SIPC member. Foreign broker dealer subsidiaries are not SIPC members. However, to the extent that any assets, including foreign securities, are being held by the U.S. broker dealer, the assets are protected by SIPC. Stocks listed on the LSE are protected by SIPC to the extent they are held with a SIPC member broker dealer, up to the statutory limit of $500,000 per customer. As I mentioned in the comments, in the case of IB, indeed they have a foreign subsidiary, which is why SIPC does not cover it (rather they are insured by Lloyds of London for such cases).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "934ef0bc0a19ea24509fa1f5c7af0b94", "text": "In my original question, I was wondering if there was a mathematical convention to help in deciding on whether an equity offering OR debt offering would be a better choice. I should have clarified better in the question, I used Vs. which may have made it unclear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f531cb1fedb1aedb3083c67fa8c7fb9a", "text": "This seemed very unrealistic, I mean who would do that? But to my immense surprise the market price increased to 5.50$ in the following week! Why is that? This is strange. It seems that people mistakenly [?] believe that the company should be at 5.5 and currently available cheap. This looks like irrational behaviour. Most of the past 6 months the said stock in range bound to 4.5 to 5. The last time it hit around 5.5 was Feb. So this is definitely strange. If the company had set a price of 6.00$ in the rights offering, would the price have increased to 6$? Obviously the company thinks that their shares are worth that much but why did the market suddenly agree? Possibly yes, possible no. It can be answered. More often the rights issue are priced at slight discount to market price. Why did this happen? Obviously management thinks that the company is worth that much, but why did the market simply believe this statement without any additional information? I don't see any other information; if the new shares had some special privileges [in terms of voting rights, dividends, etc] then yes. However the announcements says the rights issues is for common shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60e6bdbead28c05fcc3b0f90ae5bcc63", "text": "Of course, this calculation does not take into consideration the fact that once the rights are issues, the price of the shares will drop. Usually this drop corresponds to the discount. Therefore, if a rights issue is done correctly share price before issuance-discount=share price after issuance. In this result, noone's wealth changes because shareholders can then sell their stock and get back anything they had to put in.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "249fd2f459eaf89b1886dd47a39b8995", "text": "Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddb0cfad48be4fc91bf0dc8d084dca77", "text": "\"The profits that the corporation had to earn to be able to pay you \"\"eligible\"\" dividends for the dividend tax credit were already taxed, and at a somewhat high corporate rate, in the case of large public companies with big profits. The dividend tax credit, which permits an individual to earn a lot from dividends and not pay any personal income tax, essentially recognizes that the profit making up the dividend was already highly taxed to begin with via corporate income tax. It aims to eliminate double-taxation. FWIW, if you own and run a small private business in Canada and pay yourself a dividend, such dividends are considered \"\"non-eligible\"\", i.e. you don't get as much a benefit from the dividend tax credit, since small business corporate income tax rates are much lower.\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "521df5e113f22567afd3acdd292d5b3f", "text": "It comes down to the practical value of paying dividends. The investor can continually receive a stream of income without selling shares of the stock. If the stock did not pay a dividend and wanted continual income, the investor would have to continually sell shares to gain this stream of income, incurring transaction costs and increased time and effort involved with making these transactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4275283d6083a46b9904a9ea71360cbc", "text": "Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d", "text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "258fe10941770d167bff3dadc9d48eef", "text": "\"If you're referring to times when they pay nothing (or receive a refund) at the end of the year, it's because they're paying taxes throughout the year. At the end of the year, the accountants find that they paid exactly what they needed to (or more), so they don't have to pay anything (or get money back) on their yearly forms. I don't think there's a US corporation paying \"\"almost zero tax\"\" in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5da1b2653d529de022d9b333f8a33f2", "text": "The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cecef7ceb7ed8c28d9710a31dd2d53", "text": "The answer to your question doesn't depend on who you trade with but what country you live in. If you live outside of the US, you will have to pay tax on dividends... sometimes. This depends on the tax treaty that your country has with the US. Canada, Australia, UK and a few other countries have favorable tax treaties with the US that allow you to not be double taxed. You must look into the tax treaty that your home country has with the US to answer the question. Each country is different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f52cfa3fe6d5579e837625929aa1153", "text": "That's not especially high income, and while I can't speak for Canadians, most of us south of the border just pay the tax. There are tax-advantged retirement savings plans, and charitable donations are often offset by a tax credit, and there are some tax incentives for mortgages, and so on.. but generally the right answer is to just accept that the income tax money was never yours to begin with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96dd6e5df1c97fbe6e67dfe48966cbbf", "text": "It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348ecf0fe173c503a0275e31aa820056", "text": "Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits. Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b48723be4cfd22c056c3bd1f60c6f2b5", "text": "Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1c05f9836fca87e718e24af6bfbd37", "text": "Let's say your marginal tax rate is 33%. For every dollar you put in an RRSP, you'll get 33 cents back on your taxes, while the whole amount grows tax free inside the investment. If you can afford it, money in an RRSP generates a lot of free money.", "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": "6df8cd70429f5684a7e83090776d634f", "text": "This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "776390a58b31e5780cd3fe1a24d60e90", "text": "Tax-advantaged accounts mean you pay less tax. You fundamentally pay less tax on IRAs and 401ks than other accounts. That's their benefit. You keep more money at the expense of the government. It makes sense for the government to limit it. If you don't understand why you pay less tax, you must consider the time value of money -- the principal now is the same value of money as the principal + earnings later. With IRAs and 401ks, you only pay income tax once: with Roth IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when you earn it; with pre-tax Traditional IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when withdraw it. However, with outside accounts, you have to pay tax more than once: you pay once when you earn it, and pay tax again on the earnings later, earnings that grew from money that was already taxed (which, when considering time value, means that the earnings have already been taxed), but is taxed again. For things like savings in a bank, it's even worse: interest (which grew from money already taxed) is taxed every year, which means some money you pay tax on n times, if you have it in there n years. If you don't understand the above, you can see with an example. We start with $1000 pre-tax wages and for simplicity will assume a flat 25% income tax rate, and a growth rate of 10% per year, and get the cash (assume it's a qualified withdrawal) in 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7f7384d35c387d2c34d790377bb93df", "text": "\"This scheme doesn't work, because the combination of corporation tax, even the lower CCPC tax, plus the personal income tax doesn't give you a tax advantage, not on any realistic income I've ever worked it out on anyway. Prior to the 2014 tax year on lower incomes you could scrape a bit of an advantage but the 2013 budget changed the calculation for the tax credit on non-eligible dividends so there shouldn't be an advantage anymore. Moreover if you were to do it this way, by paying corporation tax instead of CPP you aren't eligible for CPP. If you sit with a calculator for long enough you may figure out a way of saving $200 or something small but it's a lot of paperwork for little if any benefit and you wouldn't get CPP. I understand the money multiplier effect described above, but the tax system is designed in a way that it makes more sense to take it as salary and put it in a tax deferred saving account, i.e. an RRSP - so there's no limit on the multiplier effect. Like I said, sit with a calculator - if you're earning a really large amount and are still under the small business limit it may make more sense to use a CCPC, but that is the case regardless of using it as a tax shelter because if you're earning a lot you're probably running a business of some size. The main benefit I think is that if you use a CCPC you can carry forward your losses, but you have to be aware of the definition of an \"\"allowable business investment loss\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "ce310edffda39222d1798d3c4619e581", "text": "\"No, having to borrow money does not necessarily mean a company will have a hard time paying the interest on it. Similarly, having to take out a mortgage on a house does not mean a person will not be able to make their mortgage payments. Borrowing money can be a way to spend future money instead of present money (at a cost, of course). A company might not have all that money at the moment, but that in no way implies they won't have it in the future. And as you allude to in your question where you talk about \"\"funding some … plans\"\", a company might be able to grow itself—possibly increasing future profits—by borrowing money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc8c9f027bfc2cc21bc6b1d146bfccf", "text": "Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62dde17ebd37c396d6b19d81e0eb7530", "text": "One more scenario is when the company already has maturing debt. e.g Company took out a debt of 2 billion in 2010 and is maturing 2016. It has paid back say 500 million but has to pay back the debtors the remaining 1.5 billion. It will again go to the debt markets to fund this 1.5 billion maybe at better terms than the 2010 issue based on market conditions and its business. The debt is to keep the business running or grow it. The people issuing debt will do complete research before issuing the debt. It can always sell stock but that results in dilution and affects shareholders. Debt also affects shareholders but when interest rates are lower, companies tend to go to debt markets. Although sometimes they can just do a secondary and be done with it if the float is low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442a363cb496ed3562c1c8194e56956c", "text": "\"People borrow money all the time to buy a house. Banks will lend money on one (up to 80%, sometimes more), because they consider it an \"\"investment.\"\" If you own a large company and want to expand, a bank or bond issuer will first look at what you plan to do with the money, like build new factories, or whatever. Based on their experience, they may judge that you will earn enough money to pay them back. If you don't, they may \"\"repossess\"\" your factories and sell them to someone who can pay. As protection, you may be asked to \"\"mortgage\"\" your existing company to protect the lenders of the new money. If you don't pay back the money, the lenders get not only your new \"\"factories\"\" but also your existing company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38788ad6f9a61ff19544e18225df86ab", "text": "It (usually) is better to use Other Peoples Money (OPM) than your own. This is something that Donald Trump has mastered. If you use OPM and something goes wrong you can declare bankruptcy and wipe out that debt. The Donald has done this more than once. At the fantastic low Intrest rates a company would be wasting resources if they only used their own money.", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "cd5a5805c50b110f2775b8b4850f1a38", "text": "5.) Target allowed the use of the coupons for gift certificates, negating the profit they would have made themselves. The customers did not create this situation. Target also renewed the coupon system with full knowledge of the circumstances. Corporate systems are hardly capable of knowledgeably allowing injury they can prevent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "505430a35e0e009f900ddb5fa2316cb6", "text": "Well, yes it does, but just because the debt is trading at 80 cents on the dollar doesn't mean that the company can actually legally get away with paying only 80 cents on the dollar. They would have to come to an agreement with the debt holders first. And perhaps they could, but the more conservative approach is to use the book value of the debt. Or what about debt that's trading at a premium to its face value, because, say, interest rates have come down relative to the time the debt was issued? The amount that the conpany owes to the debt holders hasn't suddenly gone up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13852cdf972191f4fed31803125728b2", "text": "To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec. Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec. All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d7dd3d16b1dbe15092156bd866d1eef", "text": "Right, that's my understanding of the problem too. I tried some of the indices last night (not necessarily the ones you are suggesting), but when pulling them into COMP it only provided the price return, not the total return including coupons. This latter part is still the challenge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88eb05212e390eb6b77372ec51fdc3ee", "text": "\"Even though the article doesn't actually use the word \"\"discount\"\", I think the corresponding word you are looking for is \"\"premium\"\". The words are used quite frequently even outside of the context of negative rates. In general, bonds are issued with coupons close to the prevailing level of interest rates, i.e. their price is close to par (100 dollar price). Suppose yields go up the next day, then the price moves inversely to yields, and that bond will now trade at a \"\"discount to par\"\" (less than 100 dollar price). And vice versa, if yields went down, prices go up, and the bond is now at a \"\"premium to par\"\" (greater than 100 dollar price)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e53e6f144debe88b504c07dbf20af701", "text": "Issuing/selling equity vs debt is often done during very different periods of a company's life cycle and for very different reasons. If I were to generalize - equity is most typically involved in the beginning and end of a business, debt in the middle. In the beginning your company has no cash flow, no track record so the only people willing to invest are angels/venture capitalists/true believers/friends &amp; family. People who are willing to take risk either because they like you or they believe there is a chance of high risk/high reward. In the middle of the life cycle (when the company has a demonstrated track record), it is easier to issue debt because you have stable cash flows which banks find attractive. Banks are low risk, low return investors. Towards the end of a company's life cycle the owners may decide they have successfully grown a business and want to retire (or start a new business) or maybe they just want to lock in the earnings they've achieved which are sitting in the company. In this case they may sell the company entirely to a rival firm or a private equity group. I feel like OP's original question is a bit off because I don't find too many situations where a company is seriously considering both equity and debt alternatives. Usually it is a variety of equity offerings **or** a variety of debt offerings and you're trying to figure out which one is better of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1bae7921e2964548e4bfb52f74808c", "text": "\"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ede27f0c9b40ca18f3c17d00ab7071", "text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cc6bb61f9c5b56558eef57ce1ed1a", "text": "\"You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say \"\"the company is in trouble\"\" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account.\"", "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": "5fbcb91f3b5b42e99a3cd31ec42b68b4", "text": "When individuals take on a loan, it's often in the form of a mortgage, right? And companies take out business loans all the time, only they might be a regular bank loan and not in the form of buying bonds, more similar to when an individual takes a loan. I was seeing through what process a firm would have to go through in order to get funding via the bond process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d47624bf870dbd7329aeee3c6afc574", "text": "What about in the case of a company with unexpectedly low cash (and therefore an inability to easily pay out dividends) but with a surplus of inventory? Obviously the investors should receive some premium for that, because I think anyone would prefer cash, but there are certainly extreme circumstances where it might be appropriate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9596fdd07f028fb48fc48c5d8b976a60", "text": "Almost every company carries massive debt. From a financial standpoint a company that has less than 70% of it's capital in debt is not utilizing it's growth potential. There are a few companies that buck this trend but the vast majority of corporations carry absolutely massive debt at all time. Yes even the profitable ones. As long as they pay according to the plan all is well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80d84c637b2391c22cd0374fda950391", "text": "\"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a \"\"guaranteed stock dividend\"\". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75a0733bd9cb8aa9b7ca1bc98780f9f2", "text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "8c110f32b343a2ce07b65f5da4df469c", "text": "Look for people who have done business with them. If you don't know anyone who has used their services, look for a company that at least has a brick and mortar branch in your area. Being able to deal with them face to face is a must. Have you checked with your local bank?", "title": "" } ]

[ { "docid": "d2aa9ba776cab68fb9f0bd1333bbea3b", "text": "\"You can find out the most money they will loan you for a car loan when you approach your current bank/credit union. They should be willing to layout options based on your income, and credit history. You then have to decide if those terms work for you. There are several dangers with getting loan estimates, they may be willing to lend you more than you can actually handle. They think you can afford it, but maybe you can't. They may also have a loan with a longer term, which does bring the monthly cost down, but exposes you to being upside down on the loan. You then use this a a data point when looking at other lenders. The last place you look is the auto dealer. They will be trying to pressure you on both the loan and the price, that is not the time to do doing complex mental calculations. The Suntrust web page was interesting, it included the quote: The lowest rate in each range is for LightStream's unsecured auto loan product and requires that you have an excellent credit profile. It also induced the example the rate of 2.19% - 4.24% for a 24 to 36 month loan of $10,000 to $24,999 for a used car purchased from a dealer. Also note that my local credit union has a new/used loan at 1.49%, but you have to be a member. Sunstrust seems to be in the minority. In general a loan for X$ and y months will have a lower rate if it is secured with collateral. But Suntrust is offering unsecured loans (i.e. no collateral) at a low rate. The big benefit for their product is that you get the cash today. You can get the cash before you know what you want to buy. You get the cash before you have negotiated with the dealer. That makes that step easier. Now will they in the near future ask for proof you bought a car with the money? no idea. If you went to the same web page and wanted a debt consolidation loan the rate for the same $ range and the same months is: 5.49% - 11.24% the quote now changes to: The lowest rate in each range requires that you have an excellent credit profile. I have no idea what rate they will actually approve you for. It is possible that if you don't have excellent credit the rate rises quickly, but 4.24% for the worst auto loan is better than 5.49% for the best debt consolidation. Excellent Credit Given the unique nature of each individual’s credit situation, LightStream believes there is no single definition for \"\"excellent credit\"\". However, we find individuals with excellent credit usually share the following characteristics: Finally, it should be noted again that each individual situation is different and that we make our credit judgment based on the specific facts of that situation. Ultimately our determination of excellent credit is based on whether we conclude that there is a very high likelihood that our loan will be repaid in a full and timely manner. All the rates mentioned in this answer are from 15 July 2017.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a11e45f2b7a31b20fab59e4a23864774", "text": "I've had loans from B of A and Wells Fargo, and both have always been quick to correct any mistakes and work with me on any problems. I think it may be partly due to the fact that I understand the problem, can clearly tell them what I expect, and I treat them like an equal that would want to help fix the problem. Some people seen to always have problems, and others seem to never have them. I believe there is a reason for that.", "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": "de136f29d9892b752067d59d4b2f60b1", "text": "Purchase loans tend to be more challenging to get the best possible rate, because you have to balance closing the loan and getting the contract. So there isn't as much time to shop around as when you do a refinance. I disagree with the sentiment to go with your local bank. Nothing wrong with asking at your local bank and using their numbers as a baseline, but chances are they won't be competitive. There are many reputable online mortgage originators that will show accurate fees and rates upfront assuming you provide accurate information. In the past there were a lot of issue with Good Faith Estimates being pretty much worthless. There were a fair number of horror stories about people showing up to closing and finding out fee or rates had increased dramatically. There was a law passed after the housing debacle that severely limits the shenanigans that lenders can do at closing and so there is less risk when going with a lesser known lender. In fact I would say the only real risk with a lender now days is choosing one that happens to be overloaded and or just has poor customer service in general. Personally I have found the most competitive rates from Zillow's mortgage service and the now defunct Google mortgage. The lenders tend to be smaller, but highly efficient. They are very much dependent on their online reputations. I have heard good things about a number of larger online lenders, but I don't have personal experience so I will leave them off. I personally wouldn't worry much about whether the loan is sold or not. Outside of refinancing I don't think I have ever talked to the bank servicing my mortgage about my mortgage. There just isn't much need to talk to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69785cfa56e360777df4467d5a7e57aa", "text": "Well, if you can get a loan for 3.8% and reliably invest for 7% returns, then you should borrow as much as you possibly can - the whole employment/existing loan situation doesn't even enter into it! But as they say, if something is too good to be true, it probably isn't (true). The 7-8% return are not guaranteed at all, but the 3.8% interest is. And while we're at it, 3.8% for an unsecured loan sounds pretty damn low, I would be really doubtful about that. I mean, why would the bank do that if they could instead invest the money for 7-8%?", "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": "5020753a623b5bf2ff5223dc20c9b78d", "text": "In my book if it comes in the mail with official looking envelopes, language and seals to try and get you to open it, the company isn't trust worthy enough for my business. I get a pile of these for my VA loan every week, I imagine FHA loans get similar junk mail. Rates are very low at the moment so it is likely that rates from reputable lenders are 1 to 2% lower than say a year or 2 years ago. In general if a lender gives you a GFE the numbers on it are going to be pretty accurate and there isn't a great deal of wiggle room for the lender so the concerns with reputation should focus on is this outfit some type of scam and then reviews on how good or bad their customer service is. Chances of running into a scam seem pretty low but the costs could be really high. As far as checking if an unknown lender is any good it is kind of tough to do. There is a list of Lenders on HUD's site. Checking BBB can't hurt but I wouldn't put a lot of stock into their recommendations. Doing some general Google searches certainly can't hurt but aren't fool proof either. Personally I would start by checking what prevailing rates are for your current situation. You could go to your proffered bank or to any number of online sites to get a couple of quotes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5d2969e3095dd87f04b0ffbbdb58be3", "text": "Check your local better business bureau. They can tell you who is in business, who's bonded, and who has had a lot of complaints levied against them for shoddy practices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93a5d77409254fa60210ce84930525a", "text": "\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6e78d648403a607c83fb538ac0fd1d7", "text": "I have recently been the lender to a couple people. It was substantially less money (~$3k), but I was trusting their good faith to pay me back. As a lender, I will never do it again. Reasons, Overall, not worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442a363cb496ed3562c1c8194e56956c", "text": "\"People borrow money all the time to buy a house. Banks will lend money on one (up to 80%, sometimes more), because they consider it an \"\"investment.\"\" If you own a large company and want to expand, a bank or bond issuer will first look at what you plan to do with the money, like build new factories, or whatever. Based on their experience, they may judge that you will earn enough money to pay them back. If you don't, they may \"\"repossess\"\" your factories and sell them to someone who can pay. As protection, you may be asked to \"\"mortgage\"\" your existing company to protect the lenders of the new money. If you don't pay back the money, the lenders get not only your new \"\"factories\"\" but also your existing company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ffb3ef759cbb56470d2a1ac59d3fd1b", "text": "\"Lots of loans that are shady to say the least are advertised currently on TV in the UK. I'm happily in a situation where I don't need a loan but might be asked to be a guarantor. If anyone asked me to be a guarantor for a loan, I'd either be capable and willing to loan that money to the person myself, or I wouldn't guarantee. I'd never, ever in a million years be a guarantor. There is one company in particular offering loans \"\"the good old-fashioned way\"\" asking for 49.9% interest with a guarantor. That is an interest rate that can bankrupt the guarantor. If you take the loan with me as the guarantor, and you decide that you are not interested in paying back the loan, I'm stuck with this loan. So since the guarantor must trust you, if he or she is established in the UK, the best thing to do would be for them to take a loan from a bank (or any supermarket nowadays will give you a loan at a decent rate) in their own name, give the money to you, and hope that you pay back the money. I'm equally responsible for repayment whether I'm guarantor or whether the loan is in my name, so I'd get that loan at a decent rate from a reputable bank.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a63cad28784905e421646aa0f9ceddf3", "text": "Look, I'm not an expert in what assets DB has in transportation companies, or to what industries DB's banks lend money. DB is a multinational corporation that probably has its fingers in hundreds of markets and industries. All I am trying to say is that DB is largely disinterested. Just because DB invests marginally in transportation and logistics does not mean that it should be trusted as a significantly invested (and informed) party, any more than I should be trusted as an interested informed party in regards to technology sector because I own shares of a mutual fund that owns shares of Apple and Alphabet. Regardless of the hearsay component, which is inherently untrustworthy, DB is not a market player such that its word should be taken as anything other than with a grain of salt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4777ce9064e80c707b0fc4fbf7440d7", "text": "It's complicated. Really, there's no solid answer for your question. Everybody's risk tolerance and time horizon is going to be different. Those who can take on more risk can take on lower-grade C-G loans at Lending Club. Those with less risk tolerance should emphasize As and Bs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb5db8326c2efdceaf19289ec6d1721", "text": "If a bank is evaluating a persons qualifications to qualify for a loan they have to follow the FDIC and HUD guidelines for equal opportunity credit. If they offer mortgages they will use the phrase equal housing. from the lending club website (fine print area): 2 This depiction is a summary of the processes for obtaining a loan or making an investment. Loans are issued by WebBank, an FDIC insured Utah-chartered industrial bank located in Salt Lake City, Utah, Equal Housing Lender. Investors do not invest directly in loans. Investors purchase Member Dependent Notes from Lending Club. Loans are not issued to borrowers in IA and ID. Individual borrowers must be a US citizen or permanent resident and at least 18 years old. Valid bank account and social security number/FEIN are required. All loans are subject to credit review and approval. Your actual rate depends upon credit score, loan amount, loan term, credit usage and history. LendingClub notes are issued pursuant to a Prospectus on file with the SEC. You should review the risks and uncertainties described in the Prospectus related to your possible investment in the notes. Currently only residents of the following states may invest in Lending Club notes: AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, ME, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NH, NV, NY, OK, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, or WY. Our mailing address is: Lending Club, 71 Stevenson, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105.", "title": "" } ]