Question stringlengths 14 166 | Answer stringlengths 3 17k |
|---|---|
Investing in income stocks for dividends - worth it? | To answer your question: yes, it's often "worth it" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for "income vs growth investing" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: "growth" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than "income" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too. |
Will an ETF increase in price if an underlying stock increases in price | An ETF consists of two componenets : stocks and weightage of each stock. Assuming the ETF tracks the average of the 5 stock prices you bought and equal weightage was given to each stock , an increase in 20% in any one of the five stocks will cause the price of the ETF to increase by 4% also This does not take into consideration tracking error && tracking difference , fund expense ratio which may affect the returns of the ETF also |
Can a company charge you for services never requested or received? | No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of. |
Why does a company's stock price affect its ability to raise debt? | As JB hints, it is likely due to superior or improving, fundamentals. If the fundamentals of a company improve then its ability to repay loans improves. If its ability to repay improves then more sources of cash become willing to lend to the company. Also if fundamentals are improving then more sources are willing to buy and/or hold the stock. |
If gold's price implodes then what goes up? | Nothing necessarily has to "benefit." Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding "benefit". |
Basic mutual fund investment questions | In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips. |
Cashing a cheque on behalf of someone else | If the cheque is not crossed, then your friend can write "payable to [your name]" above his signature when he endorses it. If it is crossed, you'll have to deposit it into his account. Given that one can deposit cheques at ATMs, this shouldn't require his presence. Just make sure he endorses it before you leave! It also might take a few more days to clear. |
Is there a good options strategy that has a fairly low risk? | You may look into covered calls. In short, selling the option instead of buying it ... playing the house. One can do this on the "buying side" too, e.g. let's say you like company XYZ. If you sell the put, and it goes up, you make money. If XYZ goes down by expiration, you still made the money on the put, and now own the stock - the one you like, at a lower price. Now, you can immediately sell calls on XYZ. If it doesn't go up, you make money. If it does goes up, you get called out, and you make even more money (probably selling the call a little above current price, or where it was "put" to you at). The greatest risk is very large declines, and so one needs to do some research on the company to see if they are decent -- e.g. have good earnings, not over-valued P/E, etc. For larger declines, one has to sell the call further out. Note there are now stocks that have weekly options as well as monthly options. You just have to calculate the rate of return you will get, realizing that underneath the first put, you need enough money available should the stock be "put" to you. An additional, associated strategy, is starting by selling the put at a higher than current market limit price. Then, over a couple days, generally lowering the limit, if it isn't reached in the stock's fluctuation. I.e. if the stock drops in the next few days, you might sell the put on a dip. Same deal if the stock finally is "put" to you. Then you can start by selling the call at a higher limit price, gradually bringing it down if you aren't successful -- i.e. the stock doesn't reach it on an upswing. My friend is highly successful with this strategy. Good luck |
Should I start investing in property with $10,000 deposit and $35,000 annual wage | I want to caveat that I am not an active investor in Australia, you most likely should seek out other investors in your market and ask them for advice/mentorship, but since you came here I can give you some generalized advice. When investing in real estate there are a two main rules of thumb to quickly determine if the property will be a good investment. The 50% rule and the 2% (or 1%) rule. The 50% rules says that in general 50% if the income from the property will go to expenses not including debt service. If you are bringing in $1000 a month 500 of that will go to utilities, taxes, repair, capital expenditures, advertising, lawn care, etc. That leave you with 500 to pay the mortgage and if anything is left that can be cash flow. As this is your first property and it is in " a relatively bad neighbourhood" you might consider bumping that up to 60% just to make sure you have padding. The 1 or 2% rules says that the monthly rent should be 1(or 2) percent of the purchase price in this case the home is bought at 150,000. If the rent is 1,500 a month it might be a good investment but if it rents for 3,000 a month it probably is a good investment. There are other factors to consider if a home meets the 2% rule it might be in a rough neighborhood which increases turnover which in general is the biggest expense in an investment property. If a property meets one or both of these rules you should take a closer look at it and with proper due diligence determine that it is a deal. These rules are just hard and fast guidelines to property analysis, they may need to be adapted to you market. For example these rules will not hold in most (all?) big cities. |
Pros/Cons of Buying Discounted Company Stock | The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough "eggs in that basket" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.) |
When should I open a “Line of credit” at my bank? | There are two basic types of lines of credit typically offered at a retail bank: Overdraft line of credit is essentially a revolving personal loan that you can draw upon as needed or automatically draw on when you overdraw on your checking account. Typically with a commercial bank there is a fee to use the automatic overdraft in addition to interest. Some credit unions don't charge a fee. Interest is typically computed using average daily balance. A Home equity line of credit is a revolving loan that is secured against your home. Interest on home-improvement related expenses is deductible. Since the bank gets a lien on your home, the rates are low. Sometimes you can even get debit cards that will hit the line. I think these are a good idea if: |
Option on an option possible? (Have a LEAP, put to me?) | As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/ |
Why do stocks go up? Is it due to companies performing well, or what else? [duplicate] | The same applies if you were looking for a business to buy: would you pay more for a business that is doing well making increasing profits year after year, or for a business that is not doing so well and is losing money. A share in a company is basically a small part of a company which a shareholder can own. So would you rather own a part of a company that is increasing profits year after year or one that is continuously losing money? Someone would buy shares in a company in order to make a better return than they could make elsewhere. They can make a profit through two ways: first, a share of the company's profits through dividends, and second capital gains from the price of the shares going up. Why does the price of the shares go up over the long term when a company does well and increases profits? Because when a company increases profits they are making more and more money which increases the net worth of the company. More investors would prefer to buy shares in a company that makes increasing profits because this will increase the net worth of the company, and in turn will drive the share price higher over the long term. A company's increase in profits creates higher demand for the company's shares. Think about it, if interest rates are so low like they are now, where it is hard to get a return higher than inflation, why wouldn't investors then search for higher returns in good performing companies in the stock market? More investors' and traders' wanting some of the pie, creates higher demand for good performing stocks driving the share price higher. The demand for these companies is there primarily because the companies are increasing their profits and net worth, so over the long term the share price will increase in-line with the net worth. Over the short to medium term other factors can also affect the share price, sometime opposite to how the company is actually performing; however this is a whole different answer to a whole different question. |
Should I find a regular job or continue doing what am doing? | This might sound harsh, but the first thing I would suggest is to stop making excuses. I wasn't able to continue due to pressure from college and family The college I went to was horrible. Employers can very easily hire foreign work-force for very cheap; for example as a citizen if I work $10 an hour, they can get someone from outside to work for $5 per hour There's no guarantee that the project will succeed. I cannot really work and at the same time develop software on my free time. Despite my failures in the past, I was not the main person that's responsible for those failures. Even if all of this is true, it's not helping you move forward and it seems to be getting in the way of creating a good action plan and motivating yourself to succeed. If you believe (based on past experiences) that you are doomed to fail, then you are indeed doomed to fail. You need to take a step back and re-evaluate your current circumstances and what you can do to reach your goals. You have a couple of things working in your favor here. It's great that you are debt free. That already puts you ahead of a lot of your peers. You have the option of living with your parents. Presumably for no rent, or at least much lower rent than you would have to pay if you move out. This is worth literally thousands of $/£/€ for every year you stay. Now, onto your questions: 1) Should I quit regular programming for a normal job because I never monetized programming so I can move out of my parents' home? Are you being paid for this "regular programming"? If so, are you being paid more than minimum wage? If not, it's perfectly acceptable to consider alternative ways to spend your time and generate income. However, this doesn't have to be at the expense of living with your parents. Have you thought about getting a new or second job while still living with them? If you absolutely must move out of your parent's home, consider renting a room in a house with other people to keep the rent costs to a minimum. That way, even if your main job is low paying, you should be able to put aside some money each month for future endeavors. 2) Should I monetize programming and gamble with the future? What does this mean? Are you thinking you'll write a mobile app and sell thousands of copies for 99¢ each? That would indeed be a big gamble, but maybe that's not what you meant, so you'll need to clarify. 3) Would it be wise to essentially quit programming for the sake of a minimum wage job? I'm not sure how this is different from question 1. So I'll reiterate what I said there - moving out is going to be expensive. You can still do it, but you're asking on a Personal Finance site where the focus is usually how to minimize living costs and maximize income. Without knowing more about where you live (employment opportunities, cost of living) the default recommendation is usually to save money by staying in your parents house. TLDR: Don't focus on anyone else. They are not preventing you from getting the job you want. Look at your own skills and qualifications (not just programming, consider all of your abilities). What are you good at? Who might need those skills? What is the cost of reaching those people (commute time, moving nearer)? What is the reward? If the reward exceeds the cost, start approaching those people. Show them what you can do. |
What are FICA taxes for a sole proprietor in the United States | FICA taxes are separate from federal and state income taxes. As a sole proprietor you owe all of those. Additionally, there is a difference with FICA when you are employed vs. self employed. Typically FICA taxes are actually split between the employer and the employee, so you pay half, they pay half. But when you're self employed, you pay both halves. This is what is commonly referred to as the self employment tax. If you are both employed and self employed as I am, your employer pays their portion of FICA on the income you earn there, and you pay both halves on the income you earn in your business. Edit: As @JoeTaxpayer added in his comment, you can specify an extra amount to be withheld from your pay when you fill out your W-4 form. This is separate from the calculation of how much to withhold based on dependents and such; see line 6 on the linked form. This could allow you to avoid making quarterly estimated payments for your self-employment income. I think this is much easier when your side income is predictable. Personally, I find it easier to come up with a percentage I must keep aside from my side income (for me this is about 35%), and then I immediately set that aside when I get paid. I make my quarterly estimated payments out of that money set aside. My side income can vary quite a bit though; if I could predict it better I would probably do the extra withholding. Yes, you need to pay taxes for FICA and federal income tax. I can't say exactly how much you should withhold though. If you have predictable deductions and such, it could be lower than you expect. I'm not a tax professional, and when it comes doing business taxes I go to someone who is. You don't have to do that, but I'm not comfortable offering any detailed advice on how you should proceed there. I mentioned what I do personally as an illustration of how I handle withholding, but I can't say that that's what someone else should do. |
How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? | Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla. |
What happens to bonds values when interest rates rise? [duplicate] | You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you. |
Why doesn’t every company and individual use tax-havens to pay less taxes? | I believe that an understanding of the taxation system can help to understand our place in it, and how that impacts each of our personal finances. I will try to remain unbiased here but this is a somewhat subjective question, so please bear with me if you disagree on any point. Some of these tax savings are well-advertised, and can be used by many people, such as tax credits for mass-transit passes which exists in some countries. But some of these tax savings are things you never heard of before, until it winds up on the news. Why do some people seem to get tax savings that you and I cannot get, and why do those people always seem to have so much more money than us? A simplistic answer can show this in three parts: (1) The source of one's income; (2) Transaction costs; and (3) "tax loopholes". Tax savings occur proportionately to one's income, and if the savings apply to investment income, they occur proportionately to one's wealth. If someone living paycheck to paycheck with a minimal amount in a bank account "saves tax on investment income", they might reduce their taxable interest from $50 to $0. That's because they simply don't have any other investment income to reduce. All of their income comes in the form of employment, which is typically very hard to save taxes on. Most governments have a very firm grasp on the taxation of employment income, because it is a huge proportion of income in the country (and therefore has the largest amount of tax associated), and because it is very straightforward (work for someone = employment income). A more cynical person than I might point out that investment income is earned by the very wealthy, who can afford to lobby for politicians to pass favourable investment income laws. Even very straightforward tax saving opportunities may cost money to enable. The simplest example would be: if a tax saving opportunity is so complicated that an average person can't understand it themselves, then an accountant, lawyer, or banker will need to be the one to explain it. And that can cost you money. If your tax isn't so much to begin with, then the transaction costs to achieve the tax savings could be higher than the tax savings themselves. For example, most countries have tax savings / deferrals if you start a corporation. These rules typically exist to promote investment in the local economy. But someone who earns $10k in a side-business might not be able to afford the $3k in incorporation costs just to save $2k in taxes. The more income and wealth you have, the more these transaction costs become worthwhile. I'm going to generally define "tax loopholes" for the purposes of this answer as something where a somewhat arbitrary situation allows for taxes that a layman would consider unfair or unexpected. This often occurs with good intentions but poor legislation - the government tries to provide a benefit to a deserving group or to promote an activity, but ends up allowing another group to take advantage. For example in Canada, there existed until a few years ago tax saving rules about passing on wealth to children at lower tax rates, only when a close family member is near-death [setting up a 'testamentary trust' between a grandparent and a grandchild could in some circumstances allow that trust to be created with additional 'tax brackets', meaning more income would be taxed at a less-than top tax rate before being distributed to the grandchildren]. The rules were put in place with the idea that "oh gee, a family member has died, and the dang ol' family is grieving so hard they can't distribute the wealth to the next generation for a few months on account of all the crying. We should make it so that the estate is taxed like a person, and if they earn only a little income, they have a low tax rate, and they only get taxed at the full rate if they have a lot of income". Seems reasonable enough, but if a family is ready to pass on wealth at the same time as someone is nudging the bucket with their foot, a morbid discussion with your lawyer and accountant could set your children up for life with forever reduced taxes on massive inheritances. In the case of the Panama / Paradise leaks, tax savings are due to all 3 of the above: Those who have massive wealth (and therefore earn the majority of their income from investments instead of employment) can afford the transaction costs associated with taking advantage of specific "tax loopholes". The simplest example of which is just that income earned in a foreign country might have a lower tax rate than income earned domestically. This is often a result of "cracks" in the foreign tax treaties between countries, which exist generally to promote business between countries and prevent double-taxing individuals who need activity in both countries for whatever reason. Take for example the "Apple loophole". Apple has operations around the world. Some activity occurs in low-tax jurisdictions. Apple reports a high percentage of the value of R&D as being associated with those jurisdictions. Those branches in low-tax jurisdictions charge the high-tax branches (such as the US) with fees for use of their valuable research. So much of Apple's income is reported in those foreign jurisdictions. It won't be taxed in the US until Apple "repatriates" the cash back to the US. Until then, the cash sits in the foreign jurisdiction, accruing less tax. This and similar rules can be used by individuals wealthy enough to hold corporations in foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates. How each particular rule / "loophole" works will depend on the nature of a specific case - tax law is complex, and the rules between countries are even more so. These foreign tax loopholes are closing every year. It is getting harder and harder to hide money offshore, and it is getting less and less likely that you will be able to find a country with juuuust the right loopholes for your own offshore wealth. These types of news leaks will only help to expedite those changes. |
What to do with $50,000? | Considered a down payment on a house? Some illiquid assets? Otherwise you are doing 'responsible' get rich slow (read: get rich old) type things. And this question only invites opinion based answer. You tried futures and don't want to take that kind of risk again with your $50,000, so thats that |
How to graph the market year over year? for example Dow Jones Index | Instead of using the actual index, use a mutual fund as a proxy for the index. Mutual funds will include dividend income, and usually report data on the value of a "hypothetical $10,000 investment" over the life of the fund. If you take those dollar values and normalize them, you should get what you want. There are so many different factors that feed into general trends that it will be difficult to draw conclusions from this sort of data. Things like news flow, earnings reporting periods, business cycles, geopolitical activity, etc all affect the various sectors of the economy differently. |
What risks are there acting as a broker between PayPal and electronic bank transfers? | This sounds like a scam. Did they email you out of the blue to offer you this 'job', by any chance, and you'd never heard of them before? That's an incredibly large red flag in and of itself. While I don't know quite what the scam is likely to be, here's how I would suggest it might work: Other variants are possible - say using a cheque rather than PayPal, or having Person A be the scammer as well. But this being a legitimate transaction is very unlikely. |
Can one use dollar cost averaging to make money with something highly volatile? | That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading. |
Why is it rational to pay out a dividend? | Paying out dividends and financing new projects with debt also lessens the agency problem. The consequences of a failed project are greater when debt is used, so the manager now has a greater incentive to see that the project is a success. This, in addition to the paid divided is a benefit to the shareholder. If equity wasn't paid out and instead used for the project then the manager may not be so interested in its success. And if it's a failure then the shareholders are worse off. |
Adding a 180 day expiration to checks | Your bank has discretion to honor checks after 6 months, so you should talk to your bank about their specific policy. In general, banks won't accept "large" stale checks. The meaning of "large" varies -- $25,000 in NYC, as little as $2k in other places. Banks that service high-volume check issuers (like rebate companies) reject checks at 180 days. For business purposes, I think some banks will create accounts for specific mailings or other purposes as well. (i.e. 2011 refund account) The accounts close after a year. |
How should I report my RSUs in my tax return | Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere. |
Why does financial investor bother to buy derivatives and then hedge the position? | Sometimes hedging is used if you have a position and you feel the market is going against your position, so one would hedge that position in order to protect their capital and possible profits instead of closing the position and incurring capital gains tax. Personally if the market was going against a position I had open I would get out of that position and protect my capital/profits instead of using more capital to hedge against my position. I would rather take a profit and pay some capital gains tax than watch my profits turn into a loss or use up more capital to try and protect a bad position. Hedging can be useful in certain circumstances but I think if you feel the market is going against your position/s for the medium to long term you should just get out of your positions instead of hedging against them. |
1.4 million cash. What do I do? | For what it's worth, the distribution I'm currently using is roughly ... with about 2/3 of the money sitting in my 401(k). I should note that this is actually considered a moderately aggressive position. I need to phone my advisor (NOT a broker, so they aren't biased toward things which are more profitable for them) and check whether I've gotten close enough to retirement that I should readjust those numbers. Could I do better? Maybe, at higher risk and higher fees that would be likely to eat most of the improved returns. Or by spending far more time micromanaging my money than I have any interest in. I've validated this distribution using the various stochastic models and it seems to work well enough that I'm generally content with it. (As I noted in a comment elsewhere, many of us will want to get up into this range before we retire -- I figure that if I hit $1.8M I can probably sustain my lifestyle solely on the income, despite expected inflation, and thus be safely covered for life -- so this isn't all that huge a chunk of cash by today's standards. Cue Daffy Duck: "I'm rich! I'm wealthy! I'm comfortably well off!" -- $2M, these days, is "comfortably well off.") |
Teaching school kids about money - what are the real life examples of math, budgeting, finance? | My education on this topic at this age range was a little more free-form. We were given a weeklong project in the 6th grade, which I remember pretty clearly: Fast forward 6 years (we were 12). You are about to be kicked out of your parents' house with the clothes on your back, $1,000 cash in your pocket, your high school diploma, and a "best of luck" from your parents. That's it. Your mission is to not be homeless, starving and still wearing only the clothes on your back in 3 months. To do this, you will find an apartment, a job (you must meet the qualifications fresh out of high school with only your diploma; no college, no experience), and a means of transportation. Then, you'll build a budget that includes your rent, estimated utilities, gasoline (calculated based on today's prices, best-guess fuel mileage of the car, and 250% of the best-guess one-way distance between home and job), food (complete nutrition is not a must, but 2000cal/day is), toiletries, clothing, and anything else you want or need to spend your paycheck or nest egg on. Remember that the laundromat isn't free, and neither is buying the washer/dryer yourself. Remember most apartments aren't furnished but do have kitchen appliances, and you can't say you found anything on the side of the road. The end product of your work will be a narrative report of the first month of your new life, a budget for the full 3 months, plus a "continuing" budget for a typical month thereafter to prove you're not just lasting out the 3 months, and all supporting evidence for your numbers, from newspaper clippings to in-store mailers (the Internet and e-commerce were just catching on at the time, Craigslist and eBay didn't exist yet, and not everyone had home Internet to begin with). Extra Credit: Make your budget work with all applicable income and sales taxes. Extra Extra Credit: Have more than your original $1000 in the bank at the end of the 3 months, after the taxes in the Extra Credit. This is a pretty serious project for a 12-year-old. Not only were we looking through the classified ads and deciphering all the common abbreviations, we were were taking trips to the grocery store with shopping lists, the local Wal-Mart or Target, the mall, even Goodwill. Some students had photos of their local gas station's prices, to which someone pointed out that their new apartment would be on the other side of town where gas was more expensive (smart kid). Some students just couldn't make it work (usually the mistakes were to be expected of middle-class middle-schoolers, like finding a job babysitting and stretching that out full-time, only working one job, buying everything new from clothes to furniture, thinking you absolutely need convenience items you can do without, and/or trying to buy the same upscale car your dad takes to work), though most students were able to provide at least a plausible before-tax budget. A few made the extra credit work, which was a lot of extra credit, because not only were you filling out a 1040EZ for your estimated income taxes, you were also figuring FICA and Social Security taxes which even some adults don't know the rates for, and remember, no Internet. Given that the extra-extra credit required you to come out ahead after taxes (good luck), I can't remember that anyone got that far. The meta-lesson that we all learned? Life without a college education is rough. |
Switch from DINK to SIWK: How do people afford kids? | How do people do it? Firstly, I'd advise you to explicitly budget all taxes. The reason is because taxes get complicated when you have a child deduction. Not that raising a child is profitable post taxes, but it can change your perspective. SIWKs with high income get by just fine. The rest sacrifice. They buy less house, or rent. They drive more than 30 minutes to work every day. They work second jobs. They stop saving for retirement. And when they fail to save or plan, they borrow from family or rack up huge credit card debt. They don't buy the sweet new truck they were planning on. They cut cable and cook meals at home. They skip church, because they can't afford the tithe, and say it's because they don't have time, don't want their children to disrupt services, etc. So right now, that "other" basket is looking pretty juicy, and the taxes can maybe be examined as well. But ultimately, if you're looking at a 30 percent hit in pay, that won't cut it. Mortgage + food alone is nearly half your budget! |
Why pay estimated taxes? | Your logic is not wrong. But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume. Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy? On average, probably. But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%. In 1989, >30%. In 2008-9, 54%. This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes. If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases. |
Mortgage or not? | Short answer: No. Longer answer: The only reason to move would be to get out of the condo and into a SFR of equal cost because condos can be quite difficult to sell and you don't really want that potential burden later on. Moving is expensive though and you can't afford to spend more when you are already living on the financial edge. Speaking of living on the edge, that's a recipe for disaster. I make, ratio-wise, a similar sort of income. Even accounting for the generous college tuition, you should be able to save at least $20K per year...at a bare minimum. And if you were careful, I figure you should be able to save $40K/year. You need to figure out where you are dumping all of your money and cut WAY back on spending and focus entirely on saving money. 1) Stop eating out. Make your own meals. I average about $2 per meal per person - no junk food. Eating out is 6 to 30 times as expensive as making meals at home. Do the math: $10 * 2 people * number of times you eat out per week * 52 ($1,040 per year for each time/week!) vs $2 * 2 people * 21 (3 meals per day) * 52 ($4,368 per year for both of you...maximum). Now I know some meals are more expensive to prepare, but the math is not unrealistic - I spend about $140 per month on groceries and make the bulk of my own food. Eating out is sticker shock for me. The food I prepare is nutritionally balanced and complete. Now I'm not a complete health-nut. I love the occasional deep-fried treat or hamburger, but those are "once every couple of months" sort of things, which makes them special. 2) Stop going to Starbucks or wherever you habitually go. It takes fuel to get there. It's also expensive when you get there. Bring your own drink if you are hanging out with friends. 3) Drop golf. Or whatever expensive sport you are sinking money into. Invest in some cheap running clothes and focus on cardio-based workouts. Heart health is more important than anything else. If you can't live without your sport, then find an alternate sport that is "equal"-ish in challenge but a ton cheaper to play. For example, if you like playing golf, play discgolf instead (most cities have courses) - there's no cost beyond a couple of discs and the challenge is still there. 4) Drop entertainment. Movies at the theater are expensive. Drop your cable subscription (you are getting financially raped for $1,500/year). Get a Netflix subscription and find shows via free online streaming services. Buy some dominoes, card games, and a couple of classic board games. Keep entertainment simple and cheap. 5) Drop your cell phone's data plan. Republic Wireless is the only decent cellular provider and even their $12/month plan is living a luxury lifestyle. If you spend more than $10/month/person for phone service, you are spending too much. 6) Stop driving everywhere. Gas is expensive. Cars are expensive. If you have more than two cars, sell the extras. If your car is worth more than $20,000, sell it and get something cheaper. 7) Stop drinking alcohol. Alcohol impairs mental functions, is addictive, smells terrible, and is ridiculously expensive. There's no actual need to consume it either. By the way, don't go and make major financial changes without the wife's sign-off. Finances are the #1 reason for divorce. So get her "OK" on this stuff. Hopefully you already knew that. The above are just some common financial pitfalls where people sink thousands and thousand of dollars and gain nothing. You can still have a full and complete life with just a minimum of the above. There is no excuse for living on the edge financially. Your story is one I'm going to share with those who give me the same excuse because they are "poor". You are "I want to punch you in the face" wealthy and you spend every last penny because you think that's how money works. You are wrong. One final piece of advice: Find a financial adviser. It is clear to me that you've been managing money wrong your whole life. A financial adviser will look at your situation and help you far more than someone on the Internet ever can. If you attend a church, many churches have the excellent Crown Financial Ministries program available which teaches sound financial management principles. The education system doesn't show people how to manage money, but that's not an excuse either. Once you dig yourself out of the financial hole you've dug for yourself, you can pass the knowledge on how to correctly manage money onto other people. |
Non Resident aliens - Question of standard vs itemized | The IRS' primary reference Pub 519 Tax Guide for Aliens -- current year online (current and previous years downloadable in PDF from the Forms&Pubs section of the website) says NO: Students and business apprentices from India. A special rule applies .... You can claim the standard deduction .... Use Worksheet 5-1 to figure your standard deduction. If you are married and your spouse files a return and itemizes deductions, you cannot take the standard deduction. Note the last sentence, which is clearly an exception to the 'India rule', which is already an exception to the general rule that nonresident filers never get the standard deduction. Of course this is the IRS' interpretation of the law (which is defined to include ratified treaties); if you think they are wrong, you could claim the deduction anyway and when they assess the additional tax (and demand payment) take it to US Tax Court -- but I suspect the legal fees will cost you more than the marginal tax on $6300, even under Tax Court's simplified procedures for small cases. |
When can you use existing real estate as collateral to buy more? | @victor has the most descriptive and basic idea on how this is done. The only thing I would add is that one benefit to real estate is that you can control how much the property is worth. By increasing rents and making the property one of the best in the neighborhood, you increase the value. As for the comment that this is the type of investing that caused the 1929 stock market crash, there are many other aspects that are overlooked. Taking equity out of real estate has been happening long before and after the depression. People do it all the time by taking out home equity loans, just not everyone uses it to purchase another investment. |
Downside to temporarily lowering interest rates? | it is possible that if you do not accept the offer, they will try offering you an even lower rate. if they offered you close to 0%, you could start carrying a balance and find a better use for the cash you would have spent paying it off. there are plenty of investments with a guaranteed return of over 0%. personally, i am using a 0% offer from one of my cards to invest in the stock market. i might lose that bet, but on average over the last 10 years, i have not. a pretty safe bet would be paying down your mortgage, or buying a cd that matures when the offer ends. that said, even a 10k$ balance might only pay you around 300$. is that worth the hassle to you? |
What is the meaning of realization in finance? | Realization is, literally, when something is made real. For example, let's say that you own some stock. You bought the stock for $1000, and after many years the stock is worth $10,000. Your investment has gained $9,000. However, you don't actually have this $10,000; you just own stock that is supposedly worth $10,000 on paper. Tomorrow, the value of the stock could plummet and only be worth $8,000. But if you sell your stock today and obtain this $10,000, the gain has now become real. You have realized a $9,000 gain. In investing, realization of a gain or loss occurs when an asset that you own has been sold for more or less than what you purchased it for. Before the asset is sold, you only have a theoretical gain or loss based on what you might receive if you sold the asset today. And tomorrow, that theoretical gain or loss could change. |
Value investing | The June 2014 issue of Barclays Wealth's Compass magazine had a very nice succinct article on this topic: "Value investing – does a rules-based approach work?". It examines the performance of value and growth styles of investment in the MSCI World and S&P500 arenas for a few decades back, and reveals a surprisingly complicated picture, depending on sector, region and time-period. Their summary is basically: A closer look however shows that the overall success of value strategies derives mainly from the 1970s and 1980s. ... in the US, value has underperformed growth for over 25 years since peaking in July 1988. Globally, value experienced a 30% setback in the late 1990s so that there are now periods with a length of nearly 13 years over which growth has outperformed. So the answer to "does it beat the market?" is "it depends...". Update in response to comment below: the question of risk adjusted returns is interesting. To quote another couple of fragments from the piece: Since December 1974, [MSCI world] value has outperformed growth by 2.6% annually, with lower risk. This outperformance on a risk-adjusted basis is the so-called value premium that Eugene Fama and Kenneth French first identified in 1992... and That outperformance has, however, come with more risk. Historical volatility of the pure style indices has been 21-22% compared to 16% for the market. ... From a maximum drawdown perspective, the 69% drop of pure value during the financial crisis exceeded the 51% drop of the overall market. |
Can you have a positive return with a balance below cost basis? | Have you owned the stock for longer than 2015? The stock appears to have grown in value since December 2014 from 72.85 to 73.5 which is about 0.89% growth in the year to date (2015). |
Stock trading after a crash | There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to "win it back" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate. |
Did my salesman damage my credit? What can I do? | You can sue them for damages. It would be hard to convince the court that the drop in the credit score was because of that loan, but not unthinkable. Especially if you sue through the small-claims court, where the burden of proof is slightly less formal, you have a chance to win and have them pay the difference in rates that it cost you. |
How U.S. Depreciation works Explain in brief? | If a business tool has a limited lifespan, it's value decreases (depreciates) from year to year. The business can capture that loss of value on some things that it couldn't otherwise write off as expenses. A few tools can be either expenses or depreciated, but only one of those can be chosen for that particular object. This is generally not relevant for individual taxpayers, unless you can show that the item is being used for income-producing purposes. |
What does “profits to the shareholders jumped to 15 cents a share” mean? | It's a way to help normalize the meaning of the earnings report. Some companies like Google have a small number of publicly traded shares (322 Million). Others like Microsoft have much larger numbers of shares (8.3 Billion). The meaning depends on the stock. If it's a utility company that doesn't really grow, you don't want to see lots of changes -- the earnings per share should be stable. If it's a growth company, earnings should be growing quickly, and flat growth means that the stock is probably going down, especially if slow growth wasn't expected. |
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles question | You recognize expense when you sell the hot dog. When you pay for the buns you have inventory, which is an asset. When you sell the hot dog - you have cost of goods sold, which is the expense. Expense principle says that you recognize expense when you use the product. You use the buns when you actually sell the hot dog, not before. The matching principle is also honored because you recognize expense of the buns at the time of recognizing revenue of the hot dog. |
Is it possible to trade US stock from Europe ? | Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs. |
When you're really young and have about 2K to start investing $ for retirement, why do some people advise you to go risky? | First of all, "going risky" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into "blue chips" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one. |
Who could afford a higher annual deductible who couldn't afford a higher monthly payment? | I edited in the total annual out of pocket for each level to help illustrate what's going on. Your question makes sense, of course, but it's less a matter of afford vs an attempt to save. The way these plans work is to allow some choice based on your past experience. I can afford any option, but knowing the number of visits we have had in the past, the lowest cost option has the highest premium. A young couple who hardly sees a doctor may choose the highest deductible, risking the potential $3434 extra they may pay in a bad year for the savings of $1016. Personally, I'd not be able to guess accurately enough to benefit from the middle choices, and can see the two extremes being picked most often. |
List of Investments from safest to riskiest? | I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky. |
How to calculate how much a large stock position is really worth? | This is actually a very complicated question. The key reading in this area is a seminal paper by Almgren & Chriss, "Optimal Execution of Portfolio Transactions" (2000). They show that there's a tradeoff between liquidating your portfolio faster and knowing the value with more certainty, versus liquidating more slowly (and likely for a higher price) but with less certainty. So for example, if you sold your entire position right now, you would know almost certainly how much you would get for the position. Or, you could sell off your position more slowly, and likely get more money, but you would have less certainty about how much you would get. The paper is available online at http://www.courant.nyu.edu/~almgren/papers/optliq.pdf |
Total gain of portfolio including sold stocks? | You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is: |
Which practice to keep finances after getting married: joint, or separate? | Echoing Justkt, different approaches will work for different couples. It also depends on your background, life experience, age, maturity.... Irrespective of the structure, any agreement must be based on a thorough understanding of the mechanism by which responsibility and accountability is apportioned. As in any financial relationship, when money is plentiful and covers all ends, then conflict hardly ever arises. Problems only turn up when money vanishes. Business contracts are written with a view to such conflicts and agreements within a marriage must be equatable and based on a shared understanding. So, don't worry too much about the structure. Think about thinkgs like the following: In other words, given that income between spouses is likely to be unbalanced, how do you manage this within a caring relationship so that neither feels like a charity case, a social worker, or dependent? There will not be one clear answer except that open and honest discussion on an ongoing bases can only serve to strengthen your relationship. |
Is there any sort of tax write off for unfulfilled pay checks? | Unfortunately, no. Think about the numbers. If you work for me, and I pay you $1000, you owe tax on $1000. If you still work, but I don't pay you, you have no tax due, but there's no benefit for you to collect for my stealing your time. |
Do I need to invest to become millionaire? | You're ignoring inflation. Even if we assume the ECB sticks to its 2% inflation target, and your salary only rises in line with inflation, you will be saving considerably more in forty years' time than you are today. In fact, an interest rate of 2% and an inflation rate of 2% make the sums exceptionally easy. You need to save €25,000 per year in 2057 euros to be a millionaire by 2057, which is €11,322 in 2017 euros. Challenging, but achievable. Of course, you'll only be a millionaire in 2057 euros, which will be worth less than half as much as a euro is worth right now. |
Is it okay to be married, 30 years old and have no retirement? | You aren't in trouble yet, but you are certainly on a trajectory to be later. The longer you wait the more painful it will be because you won't have the benefit of time for your money to grow. You may think you will have more disposable income at some point later when things are paid off, but trust me you wont. When college tuition kicks in for that kid, you are going to LAUGH at those student loan amounts as paltry. The wording of your question was confusing because you say in one place that you have no savings, but in another you claim to be putting away around $5k/year. The important point is how much you have saved at this point and how much you are putting in going forward. Some rules of thumb from Fidelity: (Based on your scenario) Take a look at your retirement account. Are you on track for that? It doesn't sound like it. Can you get away with your current plan? Sure, lots of people do, but unless you die young, hit the jackpot in the stock market or lottery, you are probably going to have to live WELL below your current standard of living to make that happen. |
Over how much time should I dollar-cost-average my bonus from cash into mutual funds? | I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period. |
Advice on preserving wealth in a volatile economic/political country | 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. |
Can a stop loss order be triggered by random price? | Typically this isn't a random order- having a small volume just means it's not showing on the chart, but it is a vlid price point. Same thing would've happened if it would've been a very large order that shows on the chart. Consider also that this could have been the first one of many transactions that go far below your stop point - would you not have wanted it to be executed then, at this time, as it did? Would you expect the system to look into future and decide that this is a one time dip, and not sell; versus it is a crash, and sell? Either way, the system cannot look in the future, so it has no way to know if a crash is coming, or if it was a short dip; therefore the instrcutions are executed as given - sell if any transfer happens below the limit. To avoid that (or at least reduce the chance for it), you can either leave more distance (and risk a higher loss when it crashes), or trade higher volumes, so the short small dip won't execute your order; also, very liquid stocks will not show such small transaction dips. |
What one bit of financial advice do you wish you could've given yourself five years ago? | I wish I had learned my lesson from the dot com bubble before I took a piece of the housing bubble. |
Will my father still be eligible for SNAP if I claim him as my dependent? | It seems that counting your father as your dependent shouldn't, in itself, cause him to be ineligible for SNAP. Eligibility requirements for SNAP can be found on this FNS page. There are upper limits on the "countable resources, such as a bank account" that the beneficiary's household may have, and on that household's income. (There are some other requirements, too.) From what I can tell from your question, your father shouldn't be part of your household for SNAP purposes, because: Everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares meals together is grouped together as one household. If you're transferring him money, I assume he's living and eating somewhere else, so it seems you are not part of his household. According to the IRS's Publication 501, your father is not required to be part of your household for IRS purposes to be your dependent. The test to qualify is that a non-child dependent must either: Live with you all year as a member of your household, or Be related to you in one of the ways listed under Relatives who do not have to live with you. However, by the "Special rule for parent", you may be able to use your father as your qualifying person (dependent) to be able to file as "head of household", so long as you pay more than half their support, and "more than half the cost of keeping up a home that was the main home for the entire year for your father". I don't know if in this case the IRS would consider your father "part of your household" or not. Even if the IRS considered your father part of your household based on the way you filed your taxes, I think it's possible, as the IRS and FNS are two different entities, that the definition of your father's household for SNAP purposes could be different from the IRS's. |
Why do non-electronic stock exchanges (with floor traders) still exist? | 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. |
Accepted indicators for stock market valuation | There are several camps for stock valuation, and much of it boils down to your investment style. A growth investor will not consider something with a 50x P/E ratio to be overvalued, but a value investor certainly would. I would recommend looking up the Fama-French n-factor model (it was 3-factor, I believe they have released newer papers which introduce other factors), and reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Graham's methodology is practically canon for many investors, and the methodology focuses on value, while outlining quantitative factors for determining if a stock is under or over valued. |
What is the difference between speculating and investing? | In my opinion the difference is semantic. A professional, or someone wanting to present an air of competence, is more likely to talk about investing in shares, as the word investment carries with it connotations of effort, energy and a worthwhile result. Whereas, the word speculation implies the hope of gain but with the risk of loss. |
What is a good way to save money on car expenses? | The obvious answer for savings costs with a car is not to have a car. Of course that must be balanced against other expenses (bicycle, taxi, public transport) to do things. Generally speaking, if you need a car, ways to contain expense are to buy the least expensive vehicle with the most economical engine that meets your needs, keep it undercover (reduces damage or wear due to exposure), proactively maintain it (maintenance is cheaper in the long run than the costs of dealing with a breakdown and cost of repairs, and lack of maintenance accelerates depreciation), and shop around for a good mechanic who will maintain it at a fair price. If you do a lot of milage, or do a lot of towing, or drive under load, consider a diesel. A diesel engine often costs more each service, sometimes has a shorter service interval, but it also gets greater milage. There may be a differential cost of fuel (diesel is often a bit more expensive per volume). For towing, a diesel is often more economical, due to low end power (greater torque at lower revs) which does result in better fuel economy. It is no accident that most large transport vehicles consume diesel. Do the sums based on your usage before you buy. Accelerate as gently as possible to get to speed within traffic conditions (less fuel to get to a speed). Change up to higher gears as soon as possible as - at a given speed - economy will be better, as long as the engine has enough oomph to handle it (so don't try to start from stationary in a high gear). Don't drive faster than necessary, as drag increases with speed, and hurts economy. Similarly, reduce speed gradually, to reduce undue wear on breaks and reduce fuel consumption (sharp breaking with power assisted breaks does affect fuel economy). Drive close to legal limits if conditions permit. This reduces chances of annoying other drivers (who if they get impatient may throw rocks at your car, or collide, or subject you to road rage - which contribute to damage and insurance costs). It also reduces chances of being pulled over by police and fined for obstructing other traffic. Don't tailgate. This both consumes fuel in keeping up, and means needing to slow sharply. And increases chance of accident. Don't idle more than necessary. Allow stop/start systems on your car to operate - particularly if you're in stop/start traffic. However, there is a break-even point where stopping and restarting consumes more fuel than idling, so get to know your vehicle. That depends on how much the engine needs cranking to restart - which is affected both by engine design and maintenance. Maintain it yourself if you have the skills, but account for the cost of parts and equipment, to be sure it is cost effective (modern cars are software driven, so equipment to diagnose and maintain can be expensive). Combine trips (don't get into the car for every little thing - wait until you can do a few things during a single drive) and car pool. If fuel prices vary (e.g some places have regular cycles) try to refuel near the bottom of a pricing cycle. Take unnecessary weight out of the vehicle. Don't load it up with tools unless you need them frequently. |
Why are banks providing credit scores for free? | An alternative take on the "why" is that most people's credit is better than they think, and all of these banks offer credit products. Put a "good credit" badge next to an ad for a shiny new card or auto refi, and it's just good business. |
Should I replace bonds in a passive investment strategy | No. That's the point of a passive strategy: you maintain a more or less constant mix of assets and don't try to figure out what's going to move where. |
Why don't banks allow more control over credit/debit card charges? | 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. |
Is stock in a company considered a good or a service, or something else? | Well it depends on whether or not your differentiating against. If its capital stock or stock as in a share certificate in the company. If its a share in the company then in my opinion using Equity would be best as it is a form of an asset and does refer to a piece of ownership of the entity. I wouldn't consider a share of stock a service, since the service to you is say Facebook or the broker who facilitates the transaction of buying or selling FB stock. I also would not consider it a Capital Good, as the Capital Good's would be the referring to the actual capital like the servers,other computer equipments etc. |
Should I pay cash or prefer a 0% interest loan for home furnishings? | 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... |
How do I fold side-income into our budget so my husband doesn't know? | Maybe you can just hang onto the cash and upgrade the things you buy for cash now a bit. Buy the better cut of meat, the nicer pair of shoes, etc. Since you have no trouble with bending the truth a bit.. if challenged, the shoes were "on sale". And no you must have lost the receipt. Not that I'm advocating it, but the only time I notice my better half's shoe habit is when a garbage bag of the old ones goes out the door. |
Borrowing 100k and paying it to someone then declaring bankruptcy | This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before? Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting. Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing. |
Paypal website donations without being a charity | Yes, Paypal has such a button you can use, but to be clear, the money you receive is taxable income. Your website is providing 'value' to the readers, and while they may feel they are making a gift to you, it's earned income as far as the IRS is concerned. (This assumes you are in the US, you may wish to add a tag to indicate your country) |
What is the median retirement savings in the United States today? | I find this very hard to believe Believe it. The bottom quarter of American households have negative net worth, and the bottom three quarters have no more than a tiny amount saved up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States#/media/File:MeanNetWorth2007.png In an emergency, 63% of Americans would not be able to come up with $500 without going into debt. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/ Nobody can retire with 5k in the U.S. The money will be gone within a year. Is it possible? Now you begin to see why the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare are at present hot topics in American political life. Without them, a great many more Americans would die in poverty. What is the actual figure? The $5000 figure is accurate but irrelevant; that median includes people who are thirty years from retirement and people who are two days from retirement. The more relevant statistics are those restricted to people at or close to retirement age, and they can be found lower down in the article you cite, or in numerous other studies. Here's one from the GAO for example: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-419 The figures here are, unfortunately, no less terrifying: Now $104K is a lot better than $5K, but it's still not much to retire on. Why we believe that it is reasonable to throw out all the zeros before taking the median, I do not know. That seems like bad math to me. UPDATE: There is some discussion of this point in the comments; all I'm saying here is that this is a clumsy and possibly misleading way to characterize the situation. The linked report has the actual data, but let's try to summarize it here in a more meaningful way. Let's suppose that we make buckets for how dependent on SS is a retirement-age household to avoid starving to death, being homeless, and so on? Maybe these buckets are not ideal, and we could move them around a bit. The takeaways here are that the ratios of nothing:inadequate:barely adequate:comfortable is about 40:30:20:10. That only the top decile of retirement-age households can fund a comfortable retirement without help illustrates just how dependent on SS American households are. how do 50% of old Americans survive in their old age? Social Security and Medicare. As the cited GAO report indicates: "Social Security provides most of the income for about half of households age 65 and older." Do most old Americans rely on their children for financial support? One day I met a woman at a party and we were making small talk about her kids. She had a couple already and one more was on the way. "I want to have lots of children to support me in my old age", she said. "Do you support your parents?" I asked, which frankly seemed like an entirely reasonable question. "Of course not! I can't afford it. I've got a baby on the way and two more kids at home!" I left her to draw her own conclusions as to the viability of her retirement plan. |
How can I improve my credit score if I am not paying bills or rent? | You can improve your credit score simply by being an authorized user on someone's credit card account. They don't even physically have to give you a card to use, they can just add you to the account as an authorized user and your credit score will be affected. Be forewarned though, it can be negatively impacted as well. Only participate in such a scheme if it's with someone trustworthy and reliable. |
Can this check still be honored? [duplicate] | You could talk to them, but (assuming you're in the U.S.), it's highly doubtful any bank would honor a check from 26 years ago. Most checks in the U.S. are only valid for 180 days, mainly to help companies and banks keep accounting simple. I would suggest talking to your late husband's former employer. Explain the situation and ask if they'd be willing to research it and perhaps honor his memory and contribution to their company by issuing a new check. They might do it as a gesture of good will. Are they legally bound to do this? To my knowledge, the answer is no. The check was issued and never cashed, which is not all that unusual for companies in business for a long time. A good example of this would be rebate checks, which (you'd be surprised) quite frequently end up in a drawer and forgotten about. There has to be some closure for the issuing company in its accounting, else they'd have money in their bank accounts that doesn't properly show in their ledgers. This is an interesting question, though. I hope others will reply, and perhaps they have a more informed take than me. I'm going to upvote it simply because I'd like to see this discussion continue. Good luck! |
What are some good, easy to use personal finance software? [UK] | +1 for YNAB. I used to use MS Money until it was decommissioned. I used that to historically record my spending and investing, and plot my net worth. Whilst YNAB will do that, it is actually geared towards forward planning much more so. In this area, it is fantastic. I like that there are mobile apps for it too. |
Can you lease a secondary residential apartment for a job in NYC, and declare it as expense in tax return? | As I understand it... Generally housing can't be considered a business expense unless taken at your employer's explicit direction, for the good of the business rather than the employee. Temporary assignment far enough from you home office that commuting or occasional hotel nights are impractical, maybe. In other words, if they wouldn't be (at least theoretically) willing to let you put it on an expense account, you probably can't claim it here. |
Credit cards: How is a cash advance different from a purchase? Why are the fees so high? | Think about the credit card business model... they have two revenue generators: interest and fees from borrowers and commissions and fees to merchants. The key to a successful credit card is to both sign up lots of borrowers AND lots of merchants. Credit card fortunes have improved dramatically since the 1990's when formerly off-limits merchants like grocery stores began to accept cards. So when a credit card lets you just pull cash out of any ATM, there are a few costs they need to account for when pricing the cost for such a service: Credit card banks have managed to make cash advances both a profit center and a self-serving perk. Knowing that you can always draw upon your credit line for an emergency when cash is necessary makes you less likely to actually carry cash and more likely to just rely on your credit card. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Since you ask.... How do I do it? My frugality doesn't come from budgeting or even half so much from keeping money away from myself (though mostly-one-way retirement accounts help). It's a matter of world-view. Spending and shopping for things you don't need is a vice. Limit your indulgence in it. I've also made wasteful purchases in my life. When I find myself considering buying something that I don't really need, I ask myself whether it will end up like... like the stupid eyeglass cleaner gadget from the Sharper Image that I used twice. Or the Bluetooth earpiece that spent 98% of its time lost and .02% of its time in my ear. Or the little Sony VAIO laptop which was great on the train, but probably cost 8 times as much as an EeePC and didn't do way too much more. (In my defense on that one, it was just before netbooks were really taking off... but I still felt bad about it the next year). I've also got two savings goals. The first is responsible and very big (financial stability: a year's expenses plus money for a down payment on a house. a California house. in a good neighborhood.) The second is personal and just medium-big (a large musical instrument). I've decided not to spend money on the second until I'm financially stable and I have enough money to take care of the first... so that makes me more willing to scrimp and save to pursue the first than I would be otherwise. Advice for others? Ask yourself: Why are you buying that thing? You can survive without it, can't you? You didn't need it a week ago, did you? Does the old one have holes in it or something? Or will you at least use it regularly, for years? Why aren't you buying the cheaper kind? Or buying it used? |
Profiting off $0.01 changes in real life? | You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for "frequent traders" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO. |
How can I spend less? | Try having money automatically deducted from your paycheck and put into a retirement account or savings account. As long as you don't have a problem with spending more than you have, the easiest way to stop spending money is to have it automatically put somewhere that you can't (or are unlikely to) touch it. |
Should I buy a house with a friend? | I'd be curious to compare current rent with what your overhead would be with a house. Most single people would view your current arrangement as ideal. When those about to graduate college ask for money advice, I offer that they should start by living as though they are still in college, share a house or multibedroomed apartment and sack away the difference. If you really want to buy, and I'd assume for this answer that you feel the housing market in your area has passes its bottom, I'd suggest you run the numbers and see if you can buy the house, 100% yours, but then rent out one or two rooms. You don't share your mortgage details, just charge a fair price. When the stars line up just right, these deals cost you the down payment, but the roommates pay the mortgage. I discourage the buying by two or more for the reasons MrChrister listed. |
Estimating the impact of tax-loss harvesting | When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid |
Life insurance policy | From the details you have given it looks like you have "Unit Linked" insurance policy. In such policies a part of the premium goes towards the "Insurance", the balance is invested into "Mutual Funds / stock Market". It is generally not advisable to have "Unit Linked" policy compared to pure "Term" policy. Generally the amount of fees charged for "Unit Linked" policy is high and hence the returns to the end user are low. i.e. if you buy a "Term" insurance for the same sum insured and invest on your own the balance in any "Mutual Fund" you will end up making more that what you are getting now. Typically these policies have 3 years lock-in period. As you have purchased this in 2008, you can cancel the policy without any penalties. This will save you future premium and you can buy a term insurance and invest the difference yourself. Note the unit linked policy is useful for people who do not invest on their own and this is a good way to be forced into saving than nothing else. |
Saving for retirement without employer sponsored plan | Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile. |
How big of a mortgage can I realistically afford? | $260k mortgage is pretty high for $80k salary alone -- if you have expensive tastes, be prepared to tune them down. The make or break for you will be taxes and other recurring fees. If property taxes are trending higher than inflation in your area, you'll have trouble down the line. Decisions like this are really market driven, and I don't know much about Salt Lake City. In general, condo values get punished relative to single-family homes during bad market conditions. So if this is a really nice condo in a good building in a desirable part of the city you're probably going to see the value of the property increase as the general economy improves. If the property is good, go for it. |
Precedent and models for 100% equity available via initial offering? | Specifically I was wondering, how can the founder determine an appropriate valuation and distribution of shares; ie- the amount of equity to make available for public vs how much to reserve for him/herself. This is an art more than science. If markets believe it to be worth x; one will get. This is not a direct correlation of the revenue a start up makes. It is more an estimated revenue it would make in some point in time in future. There are investment firms that can size up the opportunity and advise; however it is based on their experience and may not always be true reflection of value. |
Unusual real estate market with seemingly huge rental returns | You are suggesting that a 1% return per month is huge. There are those who suggest that one should assume (a rule of thumb here) that you should assume expenses of half the rent. 6% per year in this case. With a mortgage cost of 4.5% on a rental, you have a forecast profit of 1.5%/yr. that's $4500 on a $300K house. If you buy 20 of these, you'll have a decent income, and a frequently ringing phone. There's no free lunch, rental property can be a full time business. And very lucrative, but it's rarely a slam dunk. In response to OP's comment - First, while I do claim to know finance fairly well, I don't consider myself at 'expert' level when it comes to real estate. In the US, the ratio varies quite a bit from area to area. The 1% (rent) you observe may turn out to be great. Actual repair costs low, long term tenants, rising home prices, etc. Improve the 1.5%/yr to 2% on the 20% down, and you have a 10% return, ignoring appreciation and principal paydown. And this example of leverage is how investors seem to get such high returns. The flip side is bad luck with tenants. An eviction can mean no rent for a few months, and damage that needs fixing. A house has a number of long term replacement costs that good numbers often ignore. Roof, exterior painting, all appliances, heat, AC, etc. That's how that "50% of rent to costs" rule comes into play. |
Why do people always talk about stocks that pay high dividends? | The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate. |
Shares; are they really only for the rich/investors? | As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly. |
Does a 1045 exchange require any filing prior to that years tax return? | When you get into reading Revenue Rulings and Treasury Regulations - I'd suggest hiring a professional to do that for you. Especially since you also need to assure that the new stock does indeed qualify as QSBS. However, from the revenue ruling you quoted it doesn't sound like there's any other requirement other than reporting the subsequent purchase as a loss on your schedule D. I wouldn't know, however, if there are subsequent/superseding revenue rulings on the matter since 1998. Professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) would have the means and the ability to research this and give you a proper advice. |
Invest in (say, index funds) vs spending all money on home? | Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI. The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back. In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet. |
Why is it good to borrow money to buy a house? | You can explore the scenarios in which it is better to rent or to buy using this application: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/BuyOrRentInvestmentReturnCalculator/ In the possibly unlikely scenario shown below, at the term of the mortgage (20 years) the tenant and the buyer have practically the same return on investment. At this point the tenant's savings would be sufficient to buy a house equivalent to the buyer's, and this would be the advisable course of action (based on the figures alone). |
What price can *I* buy IPO shares for? | Some brokers have a number of shares they can offer their customers, but the small guy will get 100, not as many as they'd like. In the Tech bubble of the late 90's I was able to buy in to many IPOs, but the written deal from the broker is that you could not sell for 30 days or you'd be restricted from IPO purchases for the next 90. No matter what the stock opened at, there were a fair number of stocks thay were below IPO issue price after 30 days had passed. I haven't started looking at IPOs since the tech flameout, but had I gotten in to LinkedIn it would have been at that $45 price. Let's see if it stays at these levels after 30 days. Edit - This is the exact cut/paste from my broker's site : Selling IPO Shares: While XXX customers are always free to sell shares purchased in a public offering at any time, short holding periods of less than 31 calendar days will be a factor in determining whether XXX allocates you shares in future public offerings. Accordingly, if you sell IPO shares purchased in a public offering within 30 calendar days of such purchase, you will be restricted from participating in initial and secondary public offerings through XXX for a period of 3 months. (I deleted the broker name) I honestly don't know if I'd have gotten any LI shares. Next interesting one is Pandora. |
Expecting to move in five years; how to lock mortgage rates? | You could consider turning your current place into a Rental Property. This is more easily done with a fixed rate loan, and you said you have an ARM. The way it would work: If you can charge enough rent to cover your current mortgage plus the interest-difference on your new mortgage, then the income from your rental property can effectively lower the interest rate on your new home. By keeping your current low rate, month-after-month, you'll pay the market rate on your new home, but you'll also receive rental income from your previous home to offset the increased cost. Granted, a lot of your value will be locked up in equity in your former home, and not be easily accessible (except through a HELOC or similar), but if you can afford it, it is a good possibility. |
What is the incentive for a bank to refinance a mortgage at a lower rate? | It can be a good thing for the bank to refinance your loan for you - since you will be keeping the loan at that particular institution. This gives them more time to enjoy the free money you pay them in interest for the remaining life of the loan. Banks that offer "No closing costs" are betting that mortgage payers will move their mortgage to get the lower interest rates - and whomever holds the loan, gets the interest payments. |
Why are big companies like Apple or Google not included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) index? | That is a pretty exclusive club and for the most part they are not interested in highly volatile companies like Apple and Google. Sure, IBM is part of the DJIA, but that is about as stalwart as you can get these days. The typical profile for a DJIA stock would be one that pays fairly predictable dividends, has been around since money was invented, and are not going anywhere unless the apocalypse really happens this year. In summary, DJIA is the boring reliable company index. |
logistical details of interest and dividend payments on assets traded on the secondary market? | To Many question and they are all treated differently. I was wondering how the logistics of interest and dividend payments are handled on assets , such as mortgages, bonds, stocks, What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? When the company decides to pay dividends, does it literally track down every single owner of that stock and deposit x cents per share in that person's bank account? (This sounds absolutely absurd and seems like it would be a logistical nightmare). In Stocks, the dividends are issued periodically. The dividend date is declared well in advance. As on end of the day on Dividend date, the list of individuals [or entities] who own the stock is available with the Stock-Exchange / Registrar of the companies. To this list the dividends are credited in next few days / weeks via banking channel. Most of this is automated. What if the owner is some high-frequency algorithm that buys and sells bonds and stocks in fractions of a second? On bonds, things work slightly differently. An Bond is initially issued for say 95 [discount of 5%] and payment of 100 after say 5 years. So when the person sells it after an year, he would logically look to get a price of 96. Of course there are other factors that could fetch him a price of 94.50 or 95.50. So every change in ownership factors in the logical rate of interest. The person who submits in on maturity gets 100. For the homeowner, I'm assuming he / she still makes mortgage payments to the initial bank they got the mortgage from, even if the bank no longer "owns" the mortgage. In this case, does the trader on the secondary market who owns the mortgage also come back to that bank to collect his interest payment? This depends on how the original financial institution sells the mortgage to new institutions. Generally the homeowner would keep paying initial financial institution and they would then take a margin and pay the secondary investor. If this was collateral-ized as Mortgage backed security, it is a very different story. |
How far into the future is a stock future? How do stock futures work? | Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research |
Vanguard ETF vs mutual fund | One reason is that it is not possible (at Vanguard and at many other brokerages) to auto-invest into ETFs. Because the ETF trades like a stock, you typically must buy a whole number of shares. This makes it difficult to do auto-investing where you invest, say, a fixed dollar amount each month. If you're investing $100 and the ETF trades for $30 a share, you must either buy 3 shares and leave $10 unspent, or buy 4 and spend $20 more than you planned. This makes auto-investing with dollar amounts difficult. (It would be cool if there were brokerages that handled this for you, for instance by accumulating "leftover" cash until an additional whole share could be purchased, but I don't know of any.) A difference of 0.12% in the expense ratios is real, but small. It may be outweighed by the psychological gains of being able to adopt a "hands-off" auto-investing plan. With ETFs, you generally must remember to "manually" buy the shares yourself every so often. For many average investors, the advantage of being able to invest without having to think about it at all is worth a small increase in expense ratio. The 0.12% savings don't do you any good if you never remember to buy shares until the market is already up. |
How smart is it really to take out a loan right now? | The logic "the interest rate on the mortgage was so low it didn't make sense not to buy" is one reason the housing bubble happened. The logic was that it made the house affordable even at high prices. Once the prices collapsed people still had affordable payments, but were unable to sell because they were upside down on the mortgage. If you can refinance to a 15-year mortgage, or from a adjustable mortgage to a fixed rate mortgage. it can make sense. You can save on the monthly payment, and on the total cost of the mortgage. But don't buy to take advantage of rates; or to save on taxes; or to build a guaranteed equity. These can be false economies or things that can't be gaurenteed. Of course if nobody spends money, the economy will stay poor. As to hidden details. Only purchase housing you want to own for the long haul. If you expect to flip it in a few years, you might not be able to. You might end up stuck as a long distance landlord. |
200K 10-Year Investment Safest 5% Annual Return? | Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks. Look up "stock aristocrats" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks. If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them. That is pretty much a worst case scenerio. If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%. Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune. |
Can I make my savings keep in check with or beat inflation over a long time period via index funds? | While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the "Target" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.