Question stringlengths 14 166 | Answer stringlengths 3 13.1k |
|---|---|
Are cashiers required to check a credit card for a signature in the U.S.? | Who cares? If your card gets stolen, most cards provide you with 100% liability protection. Just sign the thing! |
Is there any instance where less leverage will get you a better return on a rental property? | leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in "the long run", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to "erase" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a "get rich or start over" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices. |
Reinvesting dividends and capital gains | I'd like to add that many companies offer Divident Re-Investment Plans or DRIPs, which is basically a regular automatic stock purchase program. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend_reinvestment_plan. While your stock broker may offer dividend reinvestment, this is not the same as a DRIP. DRIPs are offered directly by the company, rather than the stock broker. They have the added benefits that the stock purchases are almost always commission-free, and in some cases, the company even offers a discount on the stock price. It can take a little more effort to get enrolled in a DRIP, but if you are interested in holding the stock long-term, this is a good option to consider. |
Why do grocery stores in the U.S. offer cash back so eagerly? | Cash-back also lets the store turn hard currency into an electronic transfer or check, which reduces the hassle/risk of hauling bagfulls of cash to the bank. (The smaller stores I've spoken to have called this out as a major advantage of plastic over either cash or checks. I'm assuming that the problem scales with number and size of transactions.) |
Beginner questions about stock market | If I bought 1 percent share of company X, Most countries company X, is treated as a separate legal entity than individual. So max loss is what you have invested. However certain types of companies, generally called partnerships are not separate entities and you have to pay back the said loss. However such companies are not traded on stock exchanges. Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? Depends on country. Generally a minor can hold an account with a guardian. |
Is there any way to buy a new car directly from Toyota without going through a dealership? | nan |
How should I report my RSUs in my tax return | Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through E*Trade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under "Restricted Stock", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small). |
If a put seller closes early, what happens to the buyer? | You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up. |
Why do some stocks have a higher margin requirement? | It is a question of how volatile the stock is perceived to be, its beta correlation to the S&P500 or other index. Margin requirements are derived from the Federal Reserve, Self Regulatory Organizations, the exchange itself, the broker you use, and which margining system you are using. So that makes this a loaded question. There are at least three margin systems, before you have your own risk officer in a glass room that doesn't care how leveraged up you get. Brokers primarily don't want to lose money. |
Who receives the money when one company buys another? | Monsanto is a publicly traded company that trades under the ticker MON. The stock is owned by a wide range of owner around the world. The buyout offer from Bayer is an all cash offer. Bayer will buy all shares of MON at about $128/share. So if I owned 100 shares of MON, I would receive $12,800 or so for my shares. The deal has not yet been approved by regulators, which is why the stock price is hovering around $104/share today. |
Is it possible to split taxation of funds earned from a crowdfunding campaign over multiple years? | I think you should really start a limited company for this. It'll be a lot simpler to spread the income over multiple years if your business and you have completely separate identities. You should also consult an accountant, if only once to understand the basics of how to approach this. Having a limited company would also mean that if it has financial problems, you don't end up having to pay the debts yourself. With a separate company, you would keep any money raised within the company initially and only pay it to yourself as salary over the three years, so from an income tax point of view you'd only be taxed on it as you received it. The company would also pay for project expenses directly and there wouldn't be any income tax to pay on them at all. You would have to pay other taxes like VAT, but you could choose to register for VAT and then you'd be able to reclaim VAT on the company's expenses but would have to charge VAT to your customers. If you start making enough money (currently £82,000/year) you have to register for VAT whether you want to or not. The only slight complication might be that you could be subject to corporation tax on the surplus money in the first year because it might seem like a profit. However, given that you would presumably have promised something to the funders over a three year period, it should be possible to record your promises as a "liability" for "unearned income" in the company accounts. In effect you'd be saying "although there's still £60,000 in the bank, I have promised to spend it on the crowdfunded thing so it's not profit". Again you should consult an accountant at least over the basics of this. |
Should I buy a house because Mortgage rates are low | There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references: |
Does the Black-Scholes Model apply to American Style options? | A minor tangent. One can claim the S&P has a mean return of say 10%, and standard deviation of say 14% or so, but when you run with that, you find that the actual returns aren't such a great fit to the standard bell curve. Market anomalies producing the "100-year flood" far more often than predicted over even a 20 year period. This just means that the model doesn't reflect reality at the tails, even if the +/- 2 standard deviations look pretty. This goes for the Black-Sholes (I almost abbreviated it to initials, then thought better, I actually like the model) as well. The distinction between American and European is small enough that the precision of the model is wider than the difference of these two option styles. I believe if you look at the model and actual pricing, you can determine the volatility of a given stock by using prices around the strike price, but when you then model the well out of money options, you often find the market creating its own valuation. |
How to rebalance a portfolio without moving money into losing investments | If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging. |
Is leveraging notoriety to raise stock prices illegal in the US? | pump and dump is a common Illegal practice of boiler room operations. It refers to the talking a stock up, both through word of mouth as well as selling shares to unwitting buyers. I fail to see much difference between that practice and this. |
Are stock index fund likely to keep being a reliable long-term investment option? | A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at "dry periods" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan "relies" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio? |
How are Share Awards and Sales Treated? | Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss. |
Which US market indexes (Dow/DJIA, S&P500, NASDAQ) include reinvested dividends? | .INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends. |
How to rescue my money from negative interest? | In Switzerland you should have access to many brokers with fair rates, e.g. Interactive Brokers. Going through them you then put the money in various Swiss stocks like Roche, Novartis, Swisscom, Credit Suisse, Logitech, etc. No stock should be more than 10% of the total. Since you pay 0% taxes on investment profits, you really should invest. By going through a broker instead of your bank, you can cash out at any time without losing outrageous fees for the stock commissions (often 2% for banks, around 0% for brokers). If you're employed you can also ask your employer to increase the amount of your salary that goes to the pension (2. Säule), which is not limited like the 7000 you mentioned (3.Säule). |
Is there a general guideline for what percentage of a portfolio should be in gold? | The "conventional wisdom" is that you should have about 5% of your portfolio in gold. But that's an AVERAGE. Meaning that you might want to have 10% at some times (like now) and 0% in the 1980s. Right now, the price of gold has been rising, because of fears of "easing" Fed monetary policy (for the past decade), culminating in recent "quantitative easing." In the 1980s, you should have had 0% in gold given the fall of gold in 1981 because of Paul Volcker's monetary tightening policies, and other reasons. Why did gold prices drop in 1981? And a word of caution: If you don't understand the impact of "quantitative easing" or "Paul Volcker" on gold prices, you probably shouldn't be buying it. |
Ballpark salary equivalent today of “healthcare benefits” in the US? | Many answers here have given what look to be useful perspectives on your question. I want to point out an interesting technical issue. If an employer contracts with an insurer, it agrees to cover all employees (or all that fill some pre-specified definition and no one else), and to offer only a limited range of options. If you buy insurance directly, you obviously have a huge range of choices, including the (technically illegal) one of no insurance at all. Your first thought is probably, "Hey, that's great! More options, more chances to pick the plan that's right for me." Sorry, no. Yes, you have more options, but so does everyone else. If you are working for some large company, you get insurance, period. If you suspect you have an expensive health condition, you cannot buy more insurance; if you believe yourself to be healthy as a horse, you cannot get skimpier insurance and pocket the difference. Healthy people and sick people are all in the same predictable pool. If you buy insurance freely, the insurer knows that the sicker you are, the more likely you are buy insurance, a phenomenon called adverse selection. As a result, the premiums (fees) a person buying his own insurance pays are much higher, because most of his fellow policy-holders are sickly -- even if he himself is just risk-averse. On the other hand, if you are risk-neutral, if you can survive a $10,000 bill if it happens to arise, you can save big by finding the skimpiest imaginable insurance, where all your fellow policy-holders will be hale and healthy people like yourself. |
Calculating a stock's price target | The price-earnings ratio is calculated as the market value per share divided by the earnings per share over the past 12 months. In your example, you state that the company earned $0.35 over the past quarter. That is insufficient to calculate the price-earnings ratio, and probably why the PE is just given as 20. So, if you have transcribed the formula correctly, the calculation given the numbers in your example would be: 0.35 * 4 * 20 = $28.00 As to CVRR, I'm not sure your PE is correct. According to Yahoo, the PE for CVRR is 3.92 at the time of writing, not 10.54. Using the formula above, this would lead to: 2.3 * 4 * 3.92 = $36.06 That stock has a 52-week high of $35.98, so $36.06 is not laughably unrealistic. I'm more than a little dubious of the validity of that formula, however, and urge you not to base your investing decisions on it. |
Why is mortgage interest deductible in the USA for a house you live in? | Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider "Socialism" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the "Corporation are people, my friend" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to "asset producing income" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many "anti-socialists" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc). |
Where can I find open source portfolio management software? | Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case. |
Do developed country equities have a higher return than emerging market equities, when measured in the latter currency? | Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk than emerging market equities? Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk. Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance. Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity. One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency? This makes this question interesting. Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild. Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing. This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately. Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency. Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real. International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now. If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return. That is up to you, but the goal I generally recommend is making sure you are comfortable in retirement. This usually involves looking for returns are high in the long run, but not having a ton of risk in a single currency or a single market. There are reasons to believe a little bias toward your homeland is good as fees tend to be lower on local investments and local investments tend to track closer to your retirement costs, but too much can be very dangerous even for countries with stronger currencies, say Greece. |
How does a public company issue new shares without diluting the value held by existing shareholders? | Let's say the company has a million shares valued at $10 each, so market caps is $10 million dollar = $10 per share. Actual value of the company is unknown, but should be close to that $10 million if the shares are not overvalued or undervalued. If they issue 100,000 more shares at $10 each, the buyers pay a million dollar. Which goes into the bank account of the company. Which is now worth a million dollar more than before. Again, we don't know what it is worth, but the market caps should go up to $11 million dollar. And since you have now 1,100,000 shares, it's still $10 per share. If the shares are sold below or above $10, then the share price should go down or up a bit. Worst case, if the company needs money, can't get a loan, and sells 200,000 shares for $5 each to raise a million dollars, there will be suspicion that the company is in trouble, and that will affect the share price negatively. And of course the share price should have dropped anyway because the new value is $11,000,000 for $1,200,000 shares or $9.17 per share. |
How do government bond yields work? | Imagine a $1,000 face value bond paying 10% interest semi-annually. That means every 6 months there is $50 being paid. Now, if the price of that bond doubled to $2,000, what is the yield? It is still paying $50 every 6 months but now sports a 5% yield as the price went up a great deal. Similarly, if the price of the bond was cut in half to $500, now it is yielding 20% because it is still paying out the $50 every 6 months. The dollar figure is fixed. What percentage of the price it is can vary and that is why there is the inverse relationship between prices and yields. Note that the length of the bond isn't mentioned here where while usually longer bonds will have higher yields, there can be inverted yield curves as well as calls on some bonds. Also, inflation-indexed and convertible bonds could have different calculations used as principal adjustments or possible conversion to stock can change a perception on the overall return. |
How can I help my friend change his saving habits? | If he's not used to cooking, recipes might not be enough. Maybe he needs cooking lessons. I used to think if you could read, you could cook -- but I grew up "helping" my mom in the kitchen and in the process learning what all the instructions in cookbooks meant. But it also might just be force of habit, in which case about all you could do would be to go over and cook for (or with) him. Maybe if you helped him get into a good habit, he would be more likely to continue with it. Otherwise, I don't see that there's much of anything you can do. If he isn't motivated to change his habits to save for his trip, you can't make him be. |
I file 83(b) election, but did't include a copy of it in that year’s tax return | I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me. The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election. |
Tax on Stocks or ETF's | If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that "otherwise" is substantial and far-ranging. |
What happens if a purchase is $0.02 in Canada? | I think it should be free. Why? I had a coupon for 35, I bought something for 35.01 including taxes and total to pay was 0.01, rounded to 0.00. I think it's almost the same scenario. |
What can I do with “stale” checks? Can I deposit/cash them? | Find smaller payments he can make. Maybe a % of each client he takes payment from. Consult with a lawyer or google buisness contract elements and find fill them out and see what he can do. If the checks are no good bouncing them isn't going to help anything. Nor is getting a judgment from a small claims court. He can still not pay(though stays on his credit for 25 years), file for bankruptcy, etc. |
What can I replace Microsoft Money with, now that MS has abandoned it? | I use http://moneydance.com/ it has Mac, Windows and Linux versions and works well for my needs. |
How do I know when I am financially stable/ready to move out on my own? | If you are living at home as an adult, then you should be paying your fair share and contributing to the household expenses. You said your parents have loans to pay for that was part of your expenses to go to college. As an adult, you should be paying your parents back for the loans they took out on your behalf. You are a responsible person, it sounds like. Therefore, you need to finish restoring your parent's financial position first before moving out or transfer the loans that are actually yours back to you. Your college education and financial duties are your responsibility. Basically, if you are an adult you should move into your own place in a responsible way or stay at home while contributing to your parent's financial household status in a mutually beneficial way of shared responsibility. Remember, healthy adults take care of their lives and share in paying for the expenses required to live. |
How can I diversify $7k across ETFs and stocks? | When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself. |
Should I switch to this high rate checking account for my emergency fund? | I would also check into whether you can keep using your credit card instead of switching to a debit card tied to your checking account. The credit card provides you protection from someone wiping your account out. Most banks will help you get the money back if this happens while using a debit card. But you are out the money while the bank figures out who is wrong. In the credit cards case none of your money is actually taken from your account while you dispute the charge. I also agree with the others that having all your money in one account is more difficult to keep real spending money separate from emergency fund money. |
Low risk withdrawal from market. Is there a converse to dollar-cost-averaging? | When you are a certain age you will be able to tap into your retirement accounts, or start receiving pension and social security funds. In addition you may be faced with required minimum distributions from these accounts. But even before you get to those points you will generally shift the focus of new funds into the retirement account to be more conservative. Depending on the balances in the various accounts and the size of the pension and social security accounts you may even move invested funds from aggressive to conservative investments. The proper proportion of the many different types of investments and revenue streams is open to much debate. During retirement you will be pulling money out of retirement accounts either to support your standard of living or to meet the required minimum distributions. What to sell will be based on either the tax implications or the required distributions that will still maintain the asset allocation you desire. If your distributions are driven by the law you will be selling enough to meet a specific required $ figure. You will either spend that money or move it into a low interest savings account or a non-retirement investment account. If trying to meet your standard of living expectations you will be selling funds that allow you to keep your desired asset allocation but still have enough to live on. Again you will be trying to meet a specific $ figure. Of course you may decide at anytime in retirement to rebalance based on changes to your lifestyle, family obligations, or winning the lottery. |
Bid/ask spreads for index funds | First, what structure does your index fund have? If it is an open-end mutual fund, there are no bid/ask spread as the structure of this security is that it is priced once a day and transactions are done with that price. If it is an exchange-traded fund, then the question becomes how well are authorized participants taking advantage of the spread to make the fund track the index well? This is where you have to get into the Creation and Redemption unit construct of the exchange-traded fund where there are "in-kind" transactions done to either create new shares of the fund or redeem out shares of the fund. In either case, you are making some serious assumptions about the structure of the fund that don't make sense given how these are built. Index funds have lower expense ratios and are thus cheaper than other mutual funds that may take on more costs. If you want suggested reading on this, look at the investing books of John C. Bogle who studied some of this rather extensively, in addition to being one of the first to create an index fund that became known as "Bogle's Folly," where a couple of key ones would be "Common Sense on Mutual Funds: New Imperatives for the Intelligent Investor" and "Bogle on Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor." In the case of an open-end fund, there has to be a portion of the fund in cash to handle transaction costs of running the fund as there are management fees to come from running the fund in addition to dividends from the stocks that have to be carefully re-invested and other matters that make this quite easy to note. Vanguard 500 Index Investor portfolio(VFINX) has .38% in cash as an example here where you could look at any open-end mutual fund's portfolio and notice that there may well be some in cash as part of how the fund is managed. It’s the Execution, Stupid would be one of a few articles that looks at the idea of "tracking error" or how well does an index fund actually track the index where it can be noted that in some cases, there can be a little bit of active management in the fund. Just as a minor side note, when I lived in the US I did invest in index funds and found them to be a good investment. I'd still recommend them though I'd argue that while some want to see these as really simple investments, there can be details that make them quite interesting to my mind. How is its price set then? The price is computed by taking the sum value of all the assets of the fund minus the liabilities and divided by the number of outstanding shares. The price of the assets would include the closing price on the stock rather than a bid or ask, similar pricing for bonds held by the fund, derivatives and cash equivalents. Similarly, the liabilities would be costs a fund has to pay that may not have been paid yet such as management fees, brokerage costs, etc. Is it a weighted average of all the underlying stock spreads, or does it stand on its own and stems from the usual supply & demand laws ? There isn't any spread used in determining the "Net Asset Value" for the fund. The fund prices are determined after the market is closed and so a closing price can be used for stocks. The liabilities could include the costs to run the fund as part of the accounting in the fund, that most items have to come down to either being an asset, something with a positive value, or a liability, something with a negative value. Something to consider also is the size of the fund. With over $7,000,000,000 in assets, a .01% amount is still $700,000 which is quite a large amount in some ways. |
Why do stock brokers charge fees | Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees. Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes. Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years. Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers. Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above. One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive. It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation. Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system). This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers. |
Income tax on international income with money not deposited in India | Three points for you to keep in mind. 1. In the very first year, you should have 182 days outside India. So that in the year when you start your consultancy, you will not have any liability to pay tax on earning abroad. 2. Although you may be starting a consultancy abroad, if you do any services in India, there will be withholding tax depending on the country in which you have started the consultancy business. 3. Whatever money you repatriate is not taxable in India. However, if you you repatriate the money as gift to anyone who is not a relative, will be taxed in his/her hand. |
Can this year's free extension-to-pay be filed electronically? IRS Form 1127 | Form 1127 (updated link) should be filed in paper (with the supporting documents) to the IRS office that has jurisdiction in the area where you live. From the instructions (see the link above): File Form 1127 with the Internal Revenue Service (Attn: Advisory Group Manager), for the area where you maintain your legal residence or principal place of business. See Pub. 4235, Collection Advisory Group Addresses, to find the address for your local advisory group. However, if the tax due is a gift tax reportable on Form 709, send Form 1127 to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Cincinnati, OH 45999 |
How can I calculate interest portion of income when selling a stock? | Their interest expense was $17M. Where you see $5.14/sh in Key Statistics, any daily interest received is more than canceled out by the expense paid at the same time. I understand your concern, but this company is not "sitting on cash" as are Apple, Google, etc. Short term rates are well below 1%, 1yr tbill looks like about .2%. So strictly speaking, each share might have 1 cent interest you need to concern yourself with. Disclaimer to other readers - This has nothing to do with taxes. OP is asking about a specific part of the company cash flow. His worst case is $1 per 100 shares. |
What does it mean that stocks are “memoryless”? | It reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, except that just states in its weakest form that the current market price accounts for all information embedded in previous market prices. In other words, people buying today at 42 know it was selling for 40 yesterday, and the patterns and such. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. One obvious counterexample to this "memoryless" claim is bankruptcy. If a stock files bankruptcy, and there isn't enough money to pay senior debt, your shares are worth 0 in perpetuity. |
Is 401k as good as it sounds given the way it is taxed? | You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a "boat load" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not. |
Why are credit cards preferred in the US? | The real reason credit cards are so popular in the US is that Americans are lazy and broke, and the credit card companies know how to market to that. Have you ever heard of the $30k millionaires? These were individuals that purchased as if they were some of the wealthy elite, but had no real money to back it up. American society has pushed the idea of "living on credit" for quite some time now. An idea that is even furthered by watching the US government operate solely on credit. (Raise the debt ceiling much?) Live in America for more than six months and you will be bombarded with "Pre-Approved Deals" with low introductory rates that are designed to sucker the average consumer into opening multiple accounts that they don't need. Then, they try and get you to carry a balance by allowing low minimum payments that could take in the neighborhood of 20 years to pay off, depending on carried balance. This in turn pads the credit companies' pockets with all of the interest you now pay on the account. The few truly wealthy Americans do not purchase on credit. |
How to compute for losses in an upside down trade-in of a financed car? | I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is "loss" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost. |
Is there a limit on the dollar amount of a personal check? | Because of the way checks are processed, you can't write a check for $100 million or more: http://www.bankingquestions.com/checksyoureceived/q_limitfunds.html The field used for 'amount' has 10 digits, so anything at/above 10^10 cents (which would require 11 digits) can't be processed, at least not by normal means. |
Why would a person not want to purchase a Personal Liability (Umbrella) insurance policy? | This article has a section titled "Do you need an umbrella policy to cover your personal liability risks?" that says: If you have young children, for example, you might need a policy because they have lots of friends. These little tikes might get into some mischief and hurt themselves at your home. If so, you’re at risk of being sued. Do you have people over often? Do you drive like a maniac or a Parisian? Do you have firearms on your premises? Do you have gardeners and housekeepers on the grounds? All these are reasons why you might want to own an umbrella policy. Although many people in the US are homeowners, parents, drivers, etc., not everyone falls into these categories. For some people, as low as the premiums for such a policy might be, the expected cost outweighs the expected benefit. The cost of a lawsuit may be extremely high, but someone may feel that the chance of a lawsuit being filed against them is low enough to be safely ignored and not worth insuring against. I'm probably not a great example, but I'll use my own situation anyway. Even though a liability policy probably wouldn't cost me too much, I'm almost certain that I wouldn't derive any benefit from it. I live alone without children (or firearms, pet tigers, gardeners, etc.) in a 520 sq. ft. apartment, so the probability that something bad would happen to someone on the small bit of property that I rent and that they would file a sizable lawsuit against me is small enough that I choose to ignore it. |
Withdraw USD from PayPal without conversion to my home currency of EUR? | I just tried doing that on my PP which is in the Netherlands, I have added a USD bank account (from my dutch bank) and they sent the verification amount in Euros, I called the bank and wonder why they didn't let me choose account currency they said it's not possible and if I cashout Dollars that I have in my PP (cause we usually do international business so we set it to dollars) it will be changed to Euros, So we decided to keep the dollars in account to pay our bills instead of getting ripped off by PayPal in xchange rates. |
Is investing into real estate a good move for a risk-averse person at the moment | Real estate is never a low-risk investment. I'd keep your money in the bank, and make sure that you don't have more in any one bank than is guaranteed in the event of bank failure. If your bank account is in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal or Ireland, I'd consider moving it to Eurozone country that's in better shape, as there's just a slight possibility of one or more of those countries exiting the Eurozone in a disorderly fashion and forcibly converting bank accounts to a new and weak currency. |
S-Corp partnership startup. How to pay owners with minimal profit? | If you're really interested in the long-term success of your business, and you can get by in your personal finances without taking anything from the business for the time being, then don't. There is no "legal requirement" to pay yourself a prevailing wage if doing so would put the company out of business. it is common for a company's principals not to draw wages from the business until it is viable enough to sustain payroll. I was in that situation when I first began my business, so the notion that somehow I'm violating a law by being fiscally responsible for my own company is nonsense. Be wise with your new business. You didn't state why you feel the need to take some kind of payment out, but this can be a crucial mistake if it imperils your business or if that money could be better spent on marketing or some other areas which improve revenues. You can always create a salary deferral agreement between yourself and your own company which basically states that the company owes you wages but you are, for the time being, willing to defer accepting them until such time that the company has sufficient revenues to pay you. That's one solution, but the simplest answer is, if you don't need the money you're thinking of paying yourself, don't do it. Let that money work for you in the business so that it pays off better in the long run. Good luck! |
Separating money in bank account without opening another account | There are some banks that offer "pot" accounts like this (off the top of my head I think Intelligent Finance does, although they call them "jars"). The other option for charity specifically would be a CAF account: https://www.cafonline.org/my-personal-giving/plan-your-giving/individual-charity-account.aspx |
How to transfer money to yourself internationally? | Although I have not tried, you can check out the Western Union Money Transfers. http://www.westernunion.com/WUCOMWEB/staticMid.do?method=load&pagename=serviceToBank |
How did my number of shares get reduced? | Your question is missing information. The most probable reason is that the company made a split or a dividend paid in stock and that you might be confusing your historical price (which is relevant for tax purposes) with your actual market price. It is VERY important to understand this concepts before trading stocks. |
UK student loans, early repayment/avoiding further debt | I think you're right that from a pure "expected future value" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate. |
Credit balance on new credit card | A Credit Balance means that you overpayed. That's nothing to worry about; it will just be used up by your next charges. Note that this can have two reasons - either you really paid too much; or you paid off a charge that is still 'pending' - meaning it has not yet posted and is not considered in the amount you owe: Most charges in restaurants for example are pending for a day or more, because the original charge is your bill without tip (they don't know the tip when the run the card!), and the merchant spends his weekends or evenings to type in the final amount (including tip) and post the pending charge. If this is the case, it will settle ('get posted') in a day or two, and then it will match up. |
How to determine how much to charge your business for rent (in your house)? | To be confident in your solution, and get the best solution for you, consult a local accountant, preferably one who is specialized in taxes for businesses. Or muddle through the code and figure it out for yourself. The primary advantage in consulting with an accountant is that you can ask them to point out ways you can restructure your expenses, debts and income in order to minimize your tax burden. They can help you run the numbers for the various options and choose the one that is right, numerically. |
How to acquire skills required for long-term investing? | The key to good investing is you need to understand what you are investing in. That is, if you are buying a company that makes product X, you need to understand that. It is a good idea to buy stock in good companies but that is not sufficient. You need to buy stock in good companies at good prices. That means you need to understand things like price to earnings, price to revenue and price to book. Bob |
Is gold really an investment or just a hedge against inflation? | From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment. |
Can you short a stock before the ex-div. date to make a profit? | I am relative newbie in the financial market trading and as I understand it, the response from Victor is accurate in respect of trading CFD contracts. However, there is also the option to 'trade' through a financial spread betting platform which as its name suggests is purely a bet based upon the price of the underlying stock/asset. As such, I believe that your theory to short a stock just prior to its ex-dividend date may be worth investigating further... Apart from that, it's worthwhile mentioning that financial spread betting is officially recognised by HMRC as gambling and therefore not currently [2015/16] subject to capital gains tax. This info is given in good faith and must not be relied upon when making any investment and/or trading decision(s). I hope this helps you make a fortune - if it does; then please remember me! |
If I believe a stock is going to fall, what options do I have to invest on this? | Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender ("covering your short"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click "sell" or "sell short." You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it. |
How to start investing for an immigrant? | For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem. |
Dalbar: How can the average investor lose money? | I think you are mixing two different concepts here. The average investor, in the quoted reference, means an average single investor like you or like me. the average investor consistently under-performs the market. However, you then ask the question and you seem to refer to all investors as a group; individuals, institutions, investment banks, et al. since together, investors own 100% of the stock in every company? Every investor could match the performance of the market easily and at low fees by simply buying an S&P index fund and holding it. In fact, some investors can even beat the market with the addition of some stocks. Here is the ten-year chart of Berkshire-Hathaway B compared to the S&P 500. There are other examples. However, few of us have the discipline to do so. We read questions here every week about the coming turbulence in the market, about the next big trend, about the next bubble, etc. The average investor thinks he is smarter than the market and buys on a whim or sells likewise and misses out on the long, slow overall growth in the markets. Finally, the title of your question is “Dalbar: How can the average investor lose money?” I doubt that the average investor loses money in the past several years. Not making as much money as is easily possible is not at all the same as losing money. |
Who can truly afford luxury cars? | There's an aspect to this question that I really love. In general, it's a question about consumer behavior that can be expanded to inquire about the purchasing profile of any luxury good. Who buys $500 pocketbooks, $1000 wristwatches, etc? I can offer one observation regarding the car. Two close neighbors, both couples drive cars valued well above what my wife and I drive. Both families moved, and shared with us that they failed to save for their kid's college tuition. My response was to feel that this was a choice they made. As I commented to my daughter, "We can afford anything, we just can't afford everything." Our budget started with saving both for retirement and college. Very little eating out, and modest vacations, cars, and clothing. This story is getting more common for us as our peers have high school age children. As others have mentioned, the millionaire next door does not drive a Ferrari or wear a Rolex. To some extent, if you were able to peek at the budgets of these car buyers, you'll find what members here would consider at best, an interesting set of priorities. |
How to avoid maintenance fee when balance drops below minimum? | Looks like you have three options: Outside of this you might need to look for a different type of account. Hope that helps. |
Accepting high volatility for high long-term returns | Modern portfolio theory dramatically underestimates the risk of the recommended assets. This is because so few underlying assets are in the recommended part of the curve. As investors identify such assets, large amounts of money are invested in them. This temporarily reduces measured risk, and temporarily increases measured return. Sooner or later, "the trade" becomes "crowded". Eventually, large amounts of money try to "exit the trade" (into cash or the next discovered asset). And so the measurable risk suddenly rises, and the measured return drops. In other words, modern portfolio theory causes bubbles, and causes those bubbles to pop. Some other strategies to consider: |
Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? | If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The "random walk"/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not. is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL. |
Why would you sell your bonds? | You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt.... |
Is a public company allowed to issue new shares below market price without consulting shareholders? | Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. |
Fringe Benefits (Lodging) for single member S-Corp | None whatsoever, no. Moreover, trying something like that would very likely trigger a full audit. |
Why is it rational to pay out a dividend? | Firstly, investors love dividend paying company as dividends are proof of making profit (sometimes dividend can be paid out of past profits too) Secondly, investor cash in hand is better than potential earnings by the company by way of interest. Investor feels good to redeploy received cash (dividend) on their own Thirdly, in some countries dividend are tax free income as tax on dividends has already been paid. As average tax on dividend is lower than maximum marginal tax; for some investor it generates extra post tax income Fourthly, dividend pay out ratio of most companies don't exceed 30% of available fund for paying (surplus cash) so it is seen as best of both the world Lastly, I trust by instinct a regular dividend paying company more than not paying one in same sector of industry |
Events that cause major movement in forex? | Anything related to the central bank will have a large impact, as they are the ones who determine interest rates, and interest rates have a big effect on currency flows. GDP is also important, as when there is an economic slowdown it may result in the central bank reducing rates to boost economic activity. The opposite is also true, large increases in GDP may mean that an interest rate hike might be needed. Inflation data is also very important. Again, large changes in inflation either way may push the central bank towards changing rates. This data typically is in the form of CPI Note that each central bank is different. They all have specific mandates and specific pieces of economic data that they place emphasis on. The Federal Reserve as of late has closely been watching inflation data, especially wage inflation data, and employment. Significant deviations in these data points from whats expected by investors can greatly move the market. However, these specific factors are a little less important for, say, Mexico, which is mostly concerned with headline inflation. Read the statements issued by the central banks to find out whats important to them. Central banks also issue expectations for things like growth, CPI, etc. If these expectations are not met, it may result in a policy change, or at least talk of a policy change, at the next meeting of the central bank. Anticipating these policy changes and trading accordingly is one strategy to be a profitable forex trader Also, there are several forex news calendars online that indicate what is likely to be high impact news. These can be helpful starting out. |
For very high-net worth individuals, does it make sense to not have insurance? | There is an economic, a social and a psychological side to the decision whether to buy insurance or not, and if yes, which one. Economically, as you say already in your question, an insurance is on average a net loss for the insured. The key word here is "average". If you know that there are many cancer cases in your family buy health insurance by all means; it's a sound investment. If you are a reckless driver make sure you have extensive coverage on your liability insurance. But absent such extra risks: Independently of somebody's wealth insurance should be limited to covering catastrophic events. What is often overlooked is that the insurance by all means should really cover those catastrophic events. For example the car liability minimums in many states are not sufficient. The typical upper middle class person could probably pay the 15k/30k/10k required in Arizona with a loan on their house; but a really catastrophic accident is simply not covered and would totally ruin that person and their family. Insuring petty damage is a common mistake: economically speaking, all insurances should have deductibles which are as high as one could afford to pay without feeling too much pain. That "pain" qualification has an economical and a social aspect. Of course any risk which materialized is an economical damage of some kind; perhaps now I can't buy the PS4, or the diamond ring, or the car, or the house, or the island which had caught my eye. I could probably do all these things, just perhaps without some extras, even if I had paid for insurance; so if I don't want to live with the risk to lose that possibility I better buy insurance. Another economical aspect is that the money may not be available without selling assets, possibly on short notice and hence not for the best price. Then an insurance fee takes the role of paying for a permanent backup credit line (and should not be more expensive than that). The social aspect is that even events which wouldn't strictly ruin a person might still force them to, say, sell their Manhattan penthouse (no more parties!) or cancel their country club membership. That is a social pain which is probably to be avoided. Another socioeconomic aspect is that you may have a relationship to the person selling you the insurance. Perhaps he buys his car at your dealership? Perhaps he is your golf buddy? Then the insurance may be a good investment. It is only borderline bad to begin with; any benefits move the line into the profit zone. The psychological aspect is that an insurance buys peace of mind, and that often seems to be the most important benefit. A dart hits the flat screen? Hey, it was insured. Junior totals the Ferrari? Hey, it was insured. Even if the house burns down having fire insurance will be a consolation. |
Do I make money in the stock market from other people losing money? | The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet. |
Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? | It surely doesn't HURT to keep a receipt. I tend to pile up receipts in my desk drawer, never look at them, and then every few months throw them all out. If a vendor writes a receipt by hand or if the cash register is not tied in to the credit card system, keeping a receipt could give you evidence against mistakes or fraud. Like if the vendor gives you a receipt for $10 and then sends a transaction to the credit card company for $20, you could use the receipt as evidence of the problem. But if the vendor is trying to really cheat you, the most likely thing for him to do is run the legitimate transaction through, and then some time later run a fake transaction. So say today you go to vendor X, buy something for $20, and he bills your credit card $20. Then a few days later he bills you another $100 even though you never came back to the store. Sure, you have a receipt for $20. But you don't have a receipt for the $100 because you never authorized that transaction. Your receipt proves nothing -- presumably you're not disputing the $20. If you complain to the bank or go to the police or whatever, saying, "Hey look, I don't have a receipt for the $100" doesn't prove anything. How do they know you didn't just throw it away? It's difficult to prove that you never had such a receipt. |
why do I need an emergency fund if I already have investments? | There are a few major risks to doing something like that. First, you should never invest money you can't afford to lose. An emergency fund is money you can't afford to lose - by definition, you may need to have quick access to that money. If you determine that you need, for example, $3000 in emergency savings, that means that you need to have at least $3000 at all times - if you lose $500, then you now only have $2500 in emergency savings. Imagine what could've happened if you had invested your emergency savings during the 2008 crash, for example; you could easily have been in a position where you lost both your job and a good portion of your emergency savings at the same time, which is a terrible position to be in. If the car breaks down, you can't really say "now's a bad time, wait until the stock market bounces back." Second, with brokerage accounts, there may be a delay before you can actually access the money or transfer it to an account that you can actually withdraw cash from or write checks against (but some of this depends on the exact arrangement you have with your bank). This can be a problem if you're in a situation where you need immediate access to the money - if your furnace breaks in the middle of winter, you probably don't want to wait a few days for the sale and transfer to go through before you can have it fixed. Third, you can be forced to sell the investments at an unfavorable price because you're not sure when you're going to need it. You'd also likely incur trading fees and/or early withdrawal penalties when you tried to withdraw the money. Think about it this way: if you buy a bond that matures in 5 years, you're effectively betting that you won't have an emergency for the next 5 years. If you do, you'll have to either sell the bond or, if you're allowed to get the money back early, you'll likely forfeit a good amount of the interest you earned in the process (which kind of kills the point of buying the bond in the first place). Edit: As @Barmar pointed out in the comments, you may also have to pay taxes on the profits if you sell at a favorable price. In the U.S. at least, capital gains on stuff held for less than a year is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate and stuff held longer than a year is taxed at the long-term capital gains tax rate. So, if you hold the investment for less than a year, you're opening yourself up to the risks of short-term stock fluctuations as well as potential tax penalties, so if you put your emergency fund in stocks you're essentially betting that you won't have an emergency that year (which by definition you can't know). The purpose of an emergency fund is just that - to be an emergency fund. Its purpose isn't really to make money. |
Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage? | I am in Australia, but I think the banks in the UK would use similar wrkings. Your options 1 and 2 are basically no. Why would the bank consider your wife to be paying you rent when you live together. These are the type of practices that led to the GFC, and since then practices have been tightened. Regarding option 3, yes banks do take into consideration rent in their analysis of your loan. However, they would not include the full rent in their calculations, but about 70% to 75% of the full rent. This allows for loss of rent during vacant periods and adds a safety factor in their caluclations. But they will not include the rent itself, you would have to have other income as well to support your loan. Saying that, we do have Low Doc Loans in Australia (loans with little documentation required to get a loan). With these loans you basically have to make a declaration that you are telling the truth regarding your income sources and you can only usually borrow a lower LVR as these loans are seen as a bigger risk. These type of loans have also been tightened up since the GFC. |
Stock options: what happens if I leave a company and then an acquisition is finalized? | When you exercise your options, you come up with cash to buy the shares. This makes you an owner of the company for shares at the share price your options let you have. Ideally, your share price is at a significant discount to what the company is worth. Being a shareholder, you gain from any share price appreciation in a sale. The only thing the "60-day window" applies to is whether you come up with the cash to buy fast enough, or your shares get permanently deleted from the company finances, where everyone else potentially makes more, you make nothing. The sale of the company is based on whenever the sell finalizes, which is between your company and the acquiring company. |
What happens to people without any retirement savings? | I'm afraid you have missed a few of the outcomes commonly faced by millions of Americans, so I would like to take a moment to discuss a wider range of outcomes that are common in the United States today. Most importantly, some of these happen before retirement is ever reached, and have grave consequences - yet are often very closely linked to financial health and savings. Not planning ahead long-term - 10-20+ years - is generally associated with not planning ahead even for the next few months, so I'll start there. The most common thing that happens is the loss of a job, or illness/injury that put someone out of work. 6 in 10 adults in the US have less than $500 in savings, so desperation can set in very quickly, as the very next paycheck will be short or missing. Many of these Americans have no other source of saved money, either, so it's not like they can draw on retirement savings, as they don't have that either. Even if they are able to get another job or recover enough to get back to work in a few weeks, this can set off a desperate cycle. Those who have lost their jobs to technical obsolescence, major economic downturns, or large economic changes are often more severely affected. People once making excellent, middle-class (or above) wages with full benefits find they cannot find work that pays even vaguely similarly. In the past this was especially common in heavy labor jobs like manufacturing, meat-packing, and so on, but more recently this has happened in financial sectors and real estate/construction during the 2008 economic events. The more resilient people had padding, switched careers, and found other options - the less resilient, didn't. Especially during the 1970s and 1980s, many people affected by large losses of earning potential became sufficiently desperate that they fell heavily (or lost their functioning status) into substance abuse, including alcohol and drugs (cocaine and heroine being especially popular in this segment of the population). Life disruption - made even more major by a lack of savings - is a key trigger to many people who are already at risk of issues like substance addiction, mental health, or any ongoing legal issues. Another common issue is something more simple, like loss of transportation that threatens their ability to hold their job, and a lack of alternatives available through support networks, savings, family, and public transit. If their credit is bad, or their income is new, they may find even disreputable companies turn them away, or even worse - the most disreputable companies welcome them in with high interest and hair-trigger repossession policies. The most common cycle of desperation I have seen usually starts with banking over-drafts, and its associated fees. People who are afraid and desperate start to make increasingly desperate, short-sighted choices, as tunnel-vision sets in and they are unable to consider longer-term strategy as they focus on holding on to what they have and survival. Many industries have found this set of people quite profitable, including high-interest "check cashing", payday loans, and title loans (aka legal loan sharks), and it is not rare that desperate people are encouraged to get on increasing cycles of loan amounts and fees that worsen their financial situation in exchange for short-term relief. As fees, penalties, and interest add up, they lose more and more of their already strained income to stay afloat. Banks that are otherwise reputable and fair may soon blacklist them and turn them away, and suddenly only the least reputable and most predatory places offer to help at all - usually with a big smile at first, and almost always with awful strings attached. Drugs and alcohol are often readily available nearby and their use can easily turn from recreational to addictive given the allure of the escapism it offers, especially for those made vulnerable by increasing stress, desperation, loss of hope, isolation, and fear. Those who have not been within the system of poverty and desperation often do not see just how many people actively work to encourage bad decision making, with big budgets, charm, charisma, and talent. The voices of reason, trying to act as beacons to call people to take care of themselves and their future, are all too easily drowned out in the roar of a smooth and enticing operation. I personally think this is one of the greatest contributions of the movement to build personal financial health and awareness, as so many great people find ever more effective ways of pointing out the myriad ways people try to bleed your money out of you with no real concern for your welfare. Looking out for your own well-being and not being taking in by the wide array of cons and bad deals is all too often fighting against a strong societal current - as I'm sure most of our regular contributors are all too aware! With increasing desperation often comes illegal maneuvers, often quite petty in nature. Those with substance abuse issues often start reselling drugs to others to try to cover lost income or "get ahead", with often debilitating results on long-term earning potential if they get caught (which can include cost barriers to higher education, even if they do turn their life around). I think most people are surprised by how little and petty things can quickly cycle out of control. This can include things like not paying minor parking or traffic tickets, which can snowball from the $10-70 range into thousands of dollars (due to non-payment often escalating and adding additional penalties, triggering traffic stops for no other reason, etc.), arrest, and more. The elderly are not exempt from this system, and many of America's elderly spend their latter years in prison. While not all are tied to financial desperation as I've outlined above, a deeper look at poverty, crime, and the elderly will be deeply disturbing. Some of these people enter the system while young, but some only later in life. Rather than homelessness being something that only happens after people hit retirement, it often comes considerably earlier than that. If this occurs, the outcome is generally quite a bit more extreme than living off social security - some just die. The average life expectancy of adults who are living on the street is only about 64 years of age - only 2 years into early retirement age, and before full retirement age (which could of course be increased in the next 10-20 years, even if life expectancy and health of those without savings don't improve). Most have extremely restricted access to healthcare (often being emergency only), and have no comforts of home to rest and recuperate when they become ill or injured. There are many people dedicated to helping, yet the help is far less than the problem generally, and being able to take advantage of most of the help (scheduling where to go for food, who to talk to about other services, etc) heavily depends on the person not already suffering from conditions that limit their ability to care for themselves (mental conditions, mobility impairments, etc). There is also a shockingly higher risk of physical assault, injury, and death, depending on where the person goes - but it is far higher in almost every case, regardless. One of the chief problems in considering only retirement savings, is it assumes that you'll only have need for the savings and good financial health once you reach approximately the age of 62 (if it is not raised before you get there, which it has been multiple times to-date). As noted above, if homelessness occurs and becomes longstanding before that, the result is generally shortened lifespan and premature death. The other major issue of health is that preventative care - from simple dentistry to basic self-care, adequate sleep and rest, a safe place to rejuvenate - is often sacrificed in the scrambling to survive and limited budget. Those who develop chronic conditions which need regular care are more severely affected. Diabetic and injury-related limb loss, as one example, are far more likely for those without regular support resources - homeless, destitute, or otherwise. Other posters have done a great job in pointing out a number of the lesser-known governmental programs, so I won't list them again. I only note the important proviso that this may be quite a bit less in total than you think. Social Security on average pays retired workers $1300 a month. It was designed to avoid an all-too-common occurrence of simple starvation, rampant homelessness, and abject poverty among a large number of elderly. No guarantee is made that you won't have to leave your home, move away from your friends and family if you live in an expensive part of the country, etc. Some people get a bit more, some people get quite a bit less. And the loss of family and friend networks - especially to such at-risk groups - can be incredibly damaging. Note also that those financially desperate will be generally pushed to take retirement at the minimum age, even though benefits would be larger and more livable if they delayed their retirement. This is an additional cost of not having other sources of savings, which is not considered by many. Well, yes, many cannot retire whether they want to or not. I cannot find statistics on this specifically, but many are indeed just unable to financially retire without considerable loss. Social Security and other government plans help avoid the most desperate scenarios, but so many aspects of aging is not covered by insurance or affordable on the limited income that aging can be a cruel and lonely process for those with no other financial means. Those with no savings are not likely to be able to afford to regularly visit children and grandchildren, give gifts on holidays, go on cruises, enjoy the best assistive care, or afford new technological devices to assist their aging (especially those too new and experimental to be covered by the insurance plans they have). What's worse - but most people do not plan for either - is that diminished mental and physical capacity can render many people unable to navigate the system successfully. As we've seen here, many questions are from adult children trying to help their elderly parents in retirement, and include aging parents who do not understand their own access to social security, medicaid/medicare, assistive resources, or community help organizations. What happens to those aging without children or younger friend networks to step in and help? Well, we don't really have a replacement for that. I am not aware of any research that quantifies just how many in the US don't take advantage of the resources they are fully qualified to make use of and enjoy, due to a lack of education, social issues (feeling embarrassed and afraid), or inability to organize and communicate effectively. A resource being available is not very much help for those who don't have enough supportive resources to make use of it - which is very hard to effectively plan for, yet is exceedingly common. Without one's own independent resources, the natural aging and end of life process can be especially harsh. Elderly who are economically and food insecure experience far heightened incidence of depression, asthma, heart attack, and heart failure, and a host of other maladies. They are at greater risk for elder-abuse, accidental death, life-quality threatening conditions developing or worsening, and more. Scare-tactics aren't always persuasive, and they do little to improve the lives of many because the people who need to know it most generally just don't believe it. But my hope here is that the rather highly educated and sophisticated audience here will see a little more of the harsher world that their own good decisions, good fortune, culture, and position in society shields them from experiencing. There is a downside to good outcomes, which is that it can cause us to be blind to just how extremely different is the experience of others. Not all experience such terrible outcomes - but many hundreds of thousands in the US alone - do, and sometimes worse. It is not helpful to be unrealistic about this: life is not inherently kind. However, none of this suggests that being co-dependent or giving up your own financial well-being is necessary or advised to help others. Share your budgeting strategies, your plans for the future, your gentle concerns, and give of your time and resources as generously as you can - within your own set budgets and ensuring your own financial well-being. And most of all - do not so easily give up on your family and friends, and count them as life-long hopeless ne'er-do-wells. Let's all strive to be good, kind, honest, and offer non-judgmental support and advice to the best of our ability to the people we care about. It is ultimately their choice - restricted by their own experiences and abilities - but need not be fate. People regularly disappoint, but sometimes they surprise and delight. Take care of yourself, and give others the best chance you can, too. |
Short-sell, or try to rent out? | A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale. |
Accounting for reimbursements that exceed actual expenses | I've been in a very similar situation to yours in the past. Since the company is reimbursing you at a flat rate (I assume you don't need to provide documentation/receipts in order to be paid the per diem), it's not directly connected to the $90 in expenses that you mention. Unless they were taking taxes out that would need to be reimbursed, the separate category for Assets:Reimbursable:Gotham City serves no real purpose, other than to categorize the expenses. Since there is no direct relationship between your expenses and the reimbursement, I would list them as completely separate transactions: Later, if you needed to locate all of the associated expenses with the Gotham trip, gnucash lets you search on memo text for "Gotham" and will display all of the related transactions. This is a lot cleaner than having to determine what piece of the per diem goes to which expenses, or having to create a new Asset account every time you go on a trip. |
Can I actually get a share of stock issued with a piece of paper anymore? | Yes you can get them from your broker. Two main advantages I can see are: |
Is my wash sale being calculated incorrectly? | You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html |
Bid-Ask at market open, which comes first? [duplicate] | The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority. |
Is inflation a good or bad thing? Why do governments want some inflation? | Inflation is an increase in the money supply. Increases in consumer prices follow from inflation. It's not the same as inflation. Some inflation is necessary for a growing economy. If your gross national product is only $1,000, then you can get away with having less money than if your gross national product is $1 trillion. Inflation beyond this, though, is used to allow governments to live beyond their means. If there is more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices will rise. There is truth in what azcoastal says about this kind of inflation. It's theft. Governments like inflation because it allows them to pay off their debts with cheaper money. |
How much should a new graduate with new job put towards a car? | As an absolute basic in life you always need 1 month's salary free and clear sitting in the bank. You do not have this. You don't even get to count that. It's what Napoleon would refer to as an "iron reserve": you have to have this. You actually won't even have this for some two or three months. Note that you have a staggering amount of debt. You have absolutely no assets. You own nothing. You have no savings. So at this point we can say "Could your situation be any worse?" and the answer is "It could not be any worse." On the "good things in your outlook" side you have the idea that you probably have a job (it's unfortunate how you refer to it as "will pay" when you mean "might pay") but you're in perhaps the highest-expense, most-flakey economic zone on Earth. Recall that i) every company eventually closes and ii) every job eventually ends. The next incredible problem you face is that I'm guessing you just have no clue how expensive it is to insure and run a car. Any ideas of buying anything more than a junker is a non-starter, but on top of that you're not realizing how expensive it is going to be for you to run a car. Disturbingly, you have a very poor idea of even how far it is you have to drive each day. The only realistic solution for you is to bike each day to work (buy the cheapest possible bike); become the "eccentric guy" who really focusses on health. Bike in for an hour, shower at the office or a nearby gym, enjoy your day and bike home. You'll need a backpack to carry your pack lunch, buy the cheapest backpack. Since it's LA, it may be impractical. You may literally need a car. In that case, your only solution is That's the only thing you can do. Plain lean on your parents or relatives to borrow some old car and use that. (It will still cost you an awful lot of money to do so - repairs, tires, insurance, and everything else.) A reminder, You do not have your one-month "iron reserve". You have a staggering amount of debt. You have absolutely no assets. You own nothing. You have no savings. Additionally you live with the parents; you have a dream of a job (in one the highest-priced, most flakey regions) and "job" is another word for no security - jobs evaporate all the time for many reasons. Please be careful. Regarding a car, find a way to borrow one; offer to make a repair on it, say. Don't spend one cent on anything your first six months at work, concentrate only on your job. See where you are after six months. |
Is there any reason not to buy points when re-financing with intent not to sell for a while? | The math is pretty simple. You can spend less overall if you pay points. Things to remember are: |
Super-generic mutual fund type | If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments. |
Mortgage vs. Cash for U.S. home buy now | If you are investing in a mortgage strictly to avoid taxes, the answer is "pay cash now." A mortgage buys you flexibility, but at the cost of long term security, and in most cases, an overall decrease in wealth too. At a very basic level, I have to ask anyone why they would pay a bank a dollar in order to avoid paying the government 28 - 36 cents depending on your tax rate. After all, one can only deduct interest- not principal. Interest is like rent, it accrues strictly to the lender, not equity. In theory the recipient should be irrelevant. If you have a need to stiff the government, go ahead. Just realize you making a banker three times as happy. Additionally the peace of mind that comes from having a house that no banker can take away from you is, at least for me, compelling. If I have a $300,000 house with no mortgage, no payments, etc. I feel quite safe. Even if my money is tied up in equity, if a serious situation came along (say a huge doctors bill) I always have the option of a reverse mortgage later on. So, to directly counter other claims, yes, I'd rather have $300k in equity then $50k in equity and $225k in liquid assets. (Did you notice that the total net worth is $25k less? And that's even before one considers the cash flow implication of a continuing mortgage. I have no mortgage, and I'm 41. I have a lot of net worth, but the thing that I really like is that I have a roof over my head that no on e can take away from me, and sufficient savings to weather most crises). That said, a mortgage is not about total cost. It is about cash flow. To the extent that a mortgage makes your cash flow situation better, it provides a benefit- just not one that is quantifiable in dollars and cents. Rather, it is a risk/reward situation. By taking a mortgage even when you have the cash, you pay a premium (the interest rate) in order to have your funds available when you need it. A very simple strategy to calculate and/or minimize this risk would be to invest the funds in another investment. If your rate of return exceeds the interest rate minus any tax preference (e.g. 4% minus say a 25% deduction = 3%), your money is better off there, obviously. And, indeed, when interest rates are only 4%, it may may be possible to find that. That said, in most instances, a CD or an inflation protected bond or so won't give you that rate of return. There, you'd need to look at stocks- slightly more risky. When interest rates are back to normal- say 5 or 6%, it gets even harder. If you could, however, find a better return than the effective interest rate, it makes the most sense to do that investment, hold it as a hedge to pay off the mortgage (see, you get your security back if you decide not to work!), and pocket the difference. If you can't do that, your only real reason to hold the cash should be the cash flow situation. |
How is initial stock price (IPO) of a stock determined | Who determines company value at IPO? The Owners based on the advice from Lead Bankers and other Independent auditors who would determine the value of the company at the time of listing. At times instead of determining a fixed price a range is given [lower side and higher side]. The Market participants [FI / Institutional Investor Segments] then decide the price by bidding at an amount. There are multiple aspects in play that help stabalize the IPO and roles of various parties. A quick read of question with IPO tag is recommended Edits: Generally at a very broad level, one of the key purpose of the IPO is to either encash Owner equity [Owner wants some profits immediately] or Raise additional Capital. More often it is a mix of both. If the price is too low, one loose out on getting the true value, this would go to someone else. If the price is too high, then it may not attract enough buyers or even there are buyers, there is substantial -ve sentiment. This is not good for the company. Read the question From Facebook's perspective, was the fall in price after IPO actually an indication that it went well? This puts determining the price of IPO more in the realm of art than science. There are various mechanism [Lead bankers, Institutional Investors, Underwriters] the a company would put in place to ensure the IPO is success and that itself would moderate the price to realistic level. More often the price is kept slightly lower to create a positive buzz about the stock. |
Buying a mortgaged house | Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for "first-time home buyer" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property. Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K. Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage. It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on. |
Clothing Store Credit Card Account closed but not deleted | If it is closed, you should be able to trust that it is closed permanently. What you still have is the online account. Imagine this would be removed and then the account would be re-activated? That should not happen, but the way you see it, you must be afraid of that as well. What I mean to say: See these two things as completely separate. |
Why do card processing companies discourage “cash advance” activities | Square charges a 2.75% fee (which the merchant pays), so you would be losing money if you only got a 1.5% cashback bonus. I would guess that the real reason Square prohibits you from getting cash is because of Visa/MC, state and federal regulations. Visa/MC probably prohibit it for regular merchants due primarily to laws that are designed to prevent money-laundering. Certain merchants (like casinos) are allowed to give you cash advances against a credit card, but regular merchants are not allowed to do this. It is much more difficult to get Visa/MC to approve merchants to handle cash advances and they are subject to many additional regulations. Services like Western Union will let you send cash with a regular credit card, but they are classified as "money transmitters" and must comply with additional state and federal regulations. If Square were to allow cash advances, this would likely subject them to a bunch of additional regulations. It would cost them more to comply with these regulations and is outside their business model, so they simply prohibit it. |
How much of my capital should I spend on subscribing to a stock research company? | You should spend zero on your stock research company. If the management of the company actually had persistent skill in picking stocks, they would not be peddling their knowledge to the retail market for a few hundred dollars. They would rake in millions and billions by running a huge hedge fund and buy themselves a private island or something. Unfortunately for them, hedge fund investors are not as gullible as retail investors and are more likely to sue when they discover they have been lied to. Many stock "research" companies are trying to manipulate you into paying too high a price for stocks. They buy a small stock, recommend it, and then sell it at the artificially (and temporarily) high price. Others are simply recommending stocks pretty much at random. You could do that just as well as they can, and for free. Portfolio performance evaluation is a complex problem. The research company knows that its recommendations will "make good money" about half the time and that's enough to bring in a lot of uninformed people. To know whether your portfolio actually did well you need to know how much risk there was in the portfolio and how a competing "dumb" portfolio with similar characteristics fared over the same time period. And you need to repeat the experiment enough times (or long enough) to know the outcome wasn't luck. I can say confidently that your portfolio performance doesn't back up the claim that the research company has skill above and beyond luck. Much less $599 worth of skill. I can also say very confidently that there are no investors with a total of 20 thousand dollars to invest for whom purchasing stock recommendations is worth the cost, even if those recommendations do have some value. Real stock information is valuable only to large investors because the per-dollar value is low. Please do not give money to or otherwise support a semi-criminal "stock research" enterprise. |
Why are taxes on actively managed funds higher than those on index funds? | This depends on the particular index, of course. Capital gains taxes occur when stock is sold (for a profit). This occurs less frequently in an index fund: Where an active manager frequently buys and sells stocks (after all, he wants to be active :-) ), the index fund only sells stocks when the particular stock leaves the index. For an index such as the S&P 500 this does not happen that often. The more specific the criteria of the index fund, the more often the selling of stock and thus the need to pay capital gains taxes occurs. |
Is it true that the price of diamonds is based on a monopoly? | diamonds are intrinsically worthless this is simply wrong. (1) Diamonds that are sold for anything less than, oh, let's say $5000 at original retail - are indeed utterly, totally, completely worthless. It is simply "one of the great scams". Their real "price" is maybe "five bucks". End of story. There is no secondary market. Literally - "end of story". If you buy a "diamond" lol for "$2000" to impress your loved one, you can not then "sell it" for any amount of money. It is: worthless. Once again: simple, undeniable fact. the diamond you bought for 2 grand cannot be resold. Ir's worthless. (OK, maybe you can get 100 bucks for it, something like that. Or, you can scam someone clueless, and get 200 bucks.) (2) However actual "investment" stones do in fact have a value - if somewhat fragile. Example, a few years ago I sold a stone for 30 thousand. That was a "real" price and it was quite liquid - I was within days able to find a buyer. (A dealer - he would have then sold it on for 35 or whatever.) I have never dealt in stones over six figures, but I'm fairly certain those are "real" valuable objects: just like paintings by name artists. (However: yes, the line between "laughable diamonds" and actual investment stones, is indeed moving ever upwards.) (Note - the "elephant in the room" with diamonds is that GE's industrial process for simply making utterly flawless diamonds, starting with carbon, is getting better every decade.) (A second overwheleming point that nobody has mentioned: diamonds get beat-up. Regarding "engagement ring diamonds", a used one is exactly as useless as a used car. It's crap. Just as with $200,000 picassos, this concept does not apply to "actual investment stones".) Note that many of the comments/arguments on this page are very confused because: people are not distinguishing between the (ROFL) "engagement ring scam market" and the rarefied "investment gem market". The two things are utterly different. Yes, "engagement ring diamonds" are an utter scam, and are simply: "worthless". The fundamental, basic, overwhelming scam in today's business/social universe is: "engagement diamonds". Yes, the price is only due to marketing/monopolies etc. Elephant in the room A: GE's technology can - end of story - manufacture diamonds. (Starting with "pencil leads".) End of story. It's all over. Elephant in the room B: folks forget that diamonds get beat-up, they are just like used cars. Regarding "engagement-ring diamonds", nobody has ever, or will ever, bought a used one. Simple, utterly undeniable fact: regarding "engagement ring diamonds". they have: zero value. You cannot resell them. End of story. If you buy a house, you can resell it. If you buy a car, you can resell it (at a spectacular loss). If you buy a picasso, you can resell it (almost always making a huge profit). If you buy an "engagement ring diamond", it is worth: nothing. Zero. Nada. strictly regarding investment stones, which is a distinctly utterly different market. This market has no connection, in any way, at all, even vaguely, it is utterly unrelated, to "engagement ring diamonds". You can in fact buy and sell these items - very much like say "art" or "mid century antiques", and make money. This market just has utterly no connection to the whole "engagement ring diamonds" scam system. Say you buy wine at the supermarket, for 5 to 100 bucks a bottle. If you think that the "wine" thus bought, has a secondary market, or you can invest in it or something: you have lost your mind. In total contrast: Yes, although totally flakey, there is indeed an "investment wine market" which is real and reasonable. I for example have made some money in that. (I have a great anecdote even - I had one cellar of wine in burgundy, which could have been sold for, say, 30 grand - but we drank it :) ) Again, the (somewhat bizarre) actual market in investment wine, just has to "buying wine in the supermarket". To further the analogy: wine prices in the supermarket / your (ROFL) wine dealer, from 5 to 100 bucks, are just: utterly laughable. Utterly. Laughable. Much as folks sit around, and decide on "label designs", they sit around, and decide on "price points". There is, utterly, no difference between $5 and $100 grape juice rofl "wine". The price difference is simply a marketing decision: at best, you can think of it as a Velbin good. ... exactly the same applies to "engagement ring diamonds". |
Is it better to buy a computer on my credit card, or on credit from the computer store? | Since you have a credit card, I recommend you use it for the purchase. It gets you two things at the very least: Gets the purchases reported as credit utilization. If you handle that correctly, you can improve your score Most card vendors give free extended warranty and return policies that a retailer or manufacturer does not without extra fees. I buy all my electronics using my cards and not only does that optimize my scores but I have been able to enjoy painless/better RMAs for defective products just because my AmEx card would have refunded me the money anyways and the retailers knew it (AmEx would have recovered it from them in the end so it was in their interest to resolve the matter within 30 days) |
Effect of country default on house prices? | It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck. |
I thought student loans didn't have interest, or at least very low interest? [UK] | nan |
A University student wondering if investing in stocks is a good idea? | The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend "The Intelligent Investor", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.