Split (1)

train · 103k rows

text stringlengths 146 45.7k
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How do I explain why debt on debt is bad to my brother? ### Answer: This is not the case with your brother only. There are many business which run on this premise. It goes till the time all the conditions are in control and get busted when things goes out of way. You have mentioned the loan amount and not the monthly repayment amount. Even if you say, a new loan will not solve his problem, what are the way out ? Telling things nicely sometime does not work especially when facts are otherwise. Hence you need to make a compete case study which should also consider his capacity to pay. As of now it seems he has debts of around 20 months of his earning, which can be considered high, depending upon the terms of major loan such as car loan and personal loan. A case study is way out. You can explain him with such case study that he should not go for further loans. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How do I explain why debt on debt is bad to my brother? ### Answer: I'm not sure how much living expenses are there but half of $12,600 in the US would be a decent monthly income. I agree that debt on debt would just add to his problems, sort of like quicksand, the interest will just makes a person sink deeper and deeper. It seems like it might take some more radical options here to pay off the debt. Like, could he move into a much smaller home or get a roommate? How expensive was that vehicle? Could he sell it and pay cash for a much cheaper used one and use the difference toward his debt? How much does he work? Could he get a second job for just a few hours to help make extra money? Is he willing to speak with a debt counselor? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Would parking at a parking lot near or in my residence prevent me from paying for it with my transit FSA? ### Answer: No, it doesn't look like you can use the employee benefit to pay for parking near your home. The definition for "qualified parking" is in the Internal Revenue Code Section 132 ("Certain Fringe Benefits") (f) (5) (c): (C) Qualified parking The term “qualified parking” means parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work by transportation described in subparagraph (A), in a commuter highway vehicle, or by carpool. Such term shall not include any parking on or near property used by the employee for residential purposes. Parking near your home is explicitly excluded. Your employer's human resources department can probably provide information on the details of where you can park and get reimbursement. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do property taxes get deducted 100% from the Annual Tax Return or only a fraction of them? ### Answer: If your deductions are higher than the standard deduction, you will be able to subtract property taxes from your income. In your example, that means that taxes are computed based on $95,000. In 2011, the standard deduction varies between $5,800 (single filer) and $11,600 (married filing jointly). Tax credits are subtracted from your tax obligation. The most common tax credit for most people is student loan interest. If you pay $500 in student loan interest, that sum is subtracted from your tax bill. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do property taxes get deducted 100% from the Annual Tax Return or only a fraction of them? ### Answer: In 2012, the standard deduction is $5950 for a single person. Let's assume you are very charitable, and by coincidence you donate exactly $5950 to charity. Everything that falls under itemized deductions would then be deductible. So, if your property tax is $6000, in your example - Other adjustments come into play, including an exemption of $3850, I am just showing the effect of the property tax. The bottom line is that deductions come off income, not off your tax bill. The saving from a deduction is $$ x your tax bracket. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do property taxes get deducted 100% from the Annual Tax Return or only a fraction of them? ### Answer: To bring more clarity to the issue, Viriato will be entitle to deduct property tax depending upon whether he is claiming standard deduction (which varies on some factors including filling as married or single) or itemized deduction. If he is claiming, itemized deduction Example 1 is correct. Example 2 suffers from another mistake. He can get refund of only income tax portion of $5000 and not $5000. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do property taxes get deducted 100% from the Annual Tax Return or only a fraction of them? ### Answer: Any deductable expense will reduce your taxable income not your tax payable. Your Example 1 above is correct and gives you 100% deduction. It is like having a business where your sales are $100,000 and your expenses in making the sales is $40,000. The expenses are your tax deductions and reduce your profits on which you pay tax on to $60,000. If your Example 2 was correct then the situation above would change that you would pay say $30,000 tax on $100,000 sales, then apply your deductions (or expenses) of $40,000 so that you would pay no tax at all and in fact get $10,000 back in your return. In this case the government would not be collecting any taxes but paying out returns to everyone. Your Example 2 is absolutly incorrect. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Few questions related to Balance sheet and Income Statement? ### Answer: 1.) There is no logic in this question, because when there is an increase in net income for the year it will be in the form of something, ie it can be cash and cash equivalent like cash in hand or cash at bank. So as your ques says if there is increase in net income of 20 then asset side also increase by 20(cash) which makes the equation Asset = liability + share capital tally 2.) Balance sheet is a statement of assets, liabilities, and capital of a business or other organization. Expenditure or income related items wont come under balance sheet it comes under profit and loss account 3.) Stockholders' equity can increase just as easy. When a firm issues bonus to the existing share holders from free reserve a/c or capital redemption reserve a/c or security premium this will increase the share holders equity and also decreases the reserve a/c ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: international student tax deduction while trading ### Answer: So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Unmarried Couple Splitting up with Joint Ownership of Home ### Answer: Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. "Tough love" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Unmarried Couple Splitting up with Joint Ownership of Home ### Answer: Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What does a CFP do? ### Answer: A Certified Financial Planner has passed a licensing exam and will advise you and help you reach your financial goals. A good CFP can help you a lot, especially if you are unsure how to set up your insurance, investment, savings, and financial plans on your own. You do not need a CFP to get a life insurance policy. If you do get a CFP, he or she should help you above and beyond life insurance -- i.e. retirement planning, investment advice, education planning, etc. It's advantageous to you to pay a fixed price for services instead of a percentage or commission. Negotiate fees up front. For life insurance, in most cases a term policy will fit your needs. Whole life, universal life, etc., combine investments and life insurance into a single product and are big commission makers for the salesman. They make it sound like the best thing ever, so be aware. One of my rules of thumb is that, generally speaking, the larger the commission is for the salesperson, the worse the product is for the consumer. Welcome to life insurance pitches. Term life is far less expensive and provides a death benefit and nothing else. If you just had a baby and need to protect your family, for example, term life is often a good solution, easy to buy, and inexpensive. As you stated, any of the major providers will do just fine. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What does a CFP do? ### Answer: CFP stands for "Certified Financial Planner", and is a certification administered by the CFP board (a non-government non-profit entity). This has nothing to do with insurance, and CFP are not insurance agents. Many States require insurance agents to be explicitly licensed by the State as such, and only licensed insurance agents can advise on insurance products. When you're looking for an insurance policy as an investment vehicle, a financial adviser (CFP, or whatever else acronym on the business card - doesn't matter) may be helpful. But in any case, when dealing with insurance - talk to a licensed insurance agent. If your financial adviser is not a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) - talk to a licensed tax adviser about your options before making any decisions. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is legal sending dollars to someone in Mexico, and sending them back for profit? ### Answer: It is certainly legal to transfer money between people, no matter how often, as long as the money is not originally from illegal sources. If you are gaining in the process, you need to pay taxes on your (net) gain, as on any income; but as always, taxed income is still income. Consider the accumulating transaction cost, the inherent risk (of your friend keeping the money), and the risk of the exchange rate going the other way; but otherwise it is a simple arbitrage business. There are thousands of people who do that all year long at stock exchanges and money markets; you might be able to do it more efficient there, and you don't need a 'friend' on the other side for that. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I prioritize retirement savings inside of my HSA? ### Answer: Unquestionably I think the priority should be funding retirement through ROTH/IRA/401K over HSA extra. Obviously you need to fund your HSA for reasonable and expected medical expenses. Also there is some floor to your more traditional retirement funding. Beyond that what does one do with excess dollars? Given the lack of flexibility and fees, it seems clear to do ROTH IRA and 401K. Beyond that what then? You may want to decide to "take some money home" and pay taxes on it. Do you have a desire to own rental property or start/purchase a business? Upgrade your home? etc... If all those things are taken care of, only then would I put money into an HSA. YMMV but most people, maxing a ROTH IRA alone, will have plenty of money for retirement given a reasonable rate of return. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I prioritize retirement savings inside of my HSA? ### Answer: You would want to prioritize Roth and retirement over HSA. As the HSA is only for health and dental expenses, which you will always have, overfunding it will put you in a bit of a pickle for all of the life involved. For example, even if you or a loved one develop a strange & expensive ailment, the HSA will only cover the medical costs, but not any travel to specialists, hotel stays, home alterations, special vehicles, or lifestyle alterations (food, clothing). However, you will eventually stop working even if you are healthy throughout your life. I would suggest that you treat the HSA as a part of your overall emergency fund, giving it a cap the same as you would normal non-retirement savings. Since you stated you have three young children, small and large medical expenses (such as braces, trips to the emergency room) are something that are almost guaranteed, thus having fairly large amount in the HSA would be very beneficial throughout their time with you. Once the children have left however, if you still have an overwhelming balance in your HSA, you may not want to add anymore to the HSA. Setting a cap for the HSA based off a certain number of years of deductible payments for medication would be a good place to start. Roth accounts, whether it be within your company's 401k plan or the IRAs for yourself and your spouse, are single-handedly the best location for your money for long-term savings. Roth money grows tax-free, is immune to Required Minimum Distribution provisions, and will avoid estate escrow when going to one's beneficiaries. Even if you tap into the funds prior to age 59 1/2, you would only pay taxes on any investment growth, in addition to the 10% early withdrawal penalty. If you have established Roth IRA accounts and have an AGI that disallows you to further contribute to them, there is still a provision to get Roth funds contributed via conversion through what is commonly called a "back door" Roth. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: High credit utilization, some high interest - but credit score not overly bad. How to attack debt in this situation? ### Answer: You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: High credit utilization, some high interest - but credit score not overly bad. How to attack debt in this situation? ### Answer: The bottom line is you have an income problem. Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt. Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up? In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month. With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year. Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: High credit utilization, some high interest - but credit score not overly bad. How to attack debt in this situation? ### Answer: While paying off your debt quickly is obviously desirable it is simply not going to be possible. Even with tight budgeting I think you will struggle to put more than £500 or so per month towards your debt. I would keep trying to move the highest interest debt onto something cheaper, be it a loan, a balance transfer credit card ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards#nofees ) etc. It is also worth looking at your current credit cards more carefully. Sometimes you may be able to get a balance transfer deal on an existing card by talking to the card issuer, then shuffle your debt around to take advantage of it ( http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/cut-credit-card-interest ) Some think it's taboo but in your position I would also be seriously considering if you have any friends and family who can lend you money at a less crippling interest rate. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Meanings of “price of the derivative” ### Answer: @Tim - in this case, a futures contract isn't like an options contract. It's simply a method of entering into an agreement for delivery at a future date. While the speculators appear to have taken over, there are practical examples of use of the futures market. I am a gold miner and I see that my cost is $1200/oz given my quality of ore. I see the price of gold at $1600 and instead of worrying that if it goes too low, I run at a loss, I take advantage and sell contracts to match my production for the next year (or as long as the contracts go, I forget how far out gold futures are). Of course I give up the higher price if gold goes higher, but this scenarion isn't speculation, it's a business decision. The bread maker, on the other hand, might buy wheat futures to guarantee his prices for the next year. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Meanings of “price of the derivative” ### Answer: No, it means what it says. Prices change, hence price of the derivative can go down even if the price of the underlying doesn't change (e.g. theta decay in options). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: You can also create a CD ladder (say 1/3 in a 6 month CD, 1/3 in a 1 year CD, 1/3 in a 2 year CD) with half of your emergency fund money. You always want to leave some of it in a liquid account so you can get at it immediately without any interest penalty. CD's provide higher interest than a savings account. By staggering the lengths of the CD's, you give yourself more options, and can roll them over into CD's with higher rates (since interest rates are soooo low right now) as the CD's mature. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: Since this is your emergency fund, you generally want to avoid volatility while keeping pace with inflation. You really shouldn't be looking for aggressive growth (which means taking on some risk). That comes from money outside of the emergency fund. The simplest thing to do would be to shop around for a different savings account. There are some deals out there that are better than ING. Here is a good list. The "traditional" places to keep an emergency fund are Money Market Mutual Funds (not to be confused with Money Market Accounts). They are considered extremely safe investments. However, the returns on such a fund is pretty low these days, often lower than a high-yield online savings account. The next step up would be a bond fund (more volatility, slightly better return). Pick something that relies on Government bonds, not "high-yield" (junk) bonds or anything crazy like that. Fidelity Four in One comes pretty close to your "index of indexes" request, but it isn't the most stable thing. You'd probably do better with a safer investment. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: Congrats on having such a nice emergency fund. That's pretty substantial. I don't want to be the one to suggest the One Investment To Rule Them All because I might be wrong. :) I'd investigate other avenues for investment. Here are a few (in no particular order): My two cents but I think you're wise to be wary of investing in US equities now. Hedging (both with your passive investments and with another source of income) is something you can afford to do. (But to answer your question, there are indexes that are broader than the S&P 500. The Wilshire 5000 index has all of them, for example.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but "why" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: Since you already have twice your target in that emergency fund, putting that overage to work is a good idea. The impression that I get is that you'd still like to stay on the safe side. What you're looking for is a Balanced Fund. In a balanced fund the managers invest in both stocks and bonds (and cash). Since you have that diversification between those two asset classes, their returns tend to be much less volatile than other funds. Also, because of their intended audience and the traditions from that class of funds' long history, they tend to invest somewhat more conservatively in both asset classes. There are two general types of balanced funds: Conservative Allocation funds and Moderate Allocation funds. Conservative allocation funds invest in more fixed income than equity (the classic mix is 60% bonds, 40% stocks). Moderate allocation funds invest in more equity than fixed income (classic mix: 40% bonds, 60% stocks). A good pair of funds that are similar but exemplify the difference between conservative allocation and moderate allocation are Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (VWINX) for the former and Vanguard's Wellington Fund (VWELX) for the latter. (Disclaimer: though both funds are broadly considered excellent, this is not a recommendation.) Good luck sorting this out! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Super-generic mutual fund type ### Answer: 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. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? ### Answer: Keeping a receipt does allow you to verify that the expected amount was charged/debited it also can help when you need to return an item. Regarding double charging, the credit card companies look for that. If the same card is used at the same vendor for the same exact amount in a short period of time the credit card company will flag the transaction. They assume either a mistake was made, or fraud is being attempted. The most likely result is that the transaction is denied. A dishonest vendor can write down the card number, expiration date and CVV number. Then after you leave make up a new transaction for any amount they want. You of course wouldn't have a paper receipt for this fraudulent transaction. The key is reviewing your transaction history every few days: looking for unexpected amounts, locations, or number of transactions. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? ### Answer: I've seen many people sign a restaurant credit card receipt and walk away. Easy enough for the wait staff to add a tip and total. I doubt this is a high risk area compared to others, but in general, why not take the receipt for verification, or in the case of a good that can be returned, the receipt might be needed. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? ### Answer: 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. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? ### Answer: It is probably safe to throw away the receipt. Without a system to process and store receipts, they are of little use. With regards to personal finances I'm guilty of preaching without practicing 100% of the time, but here are some arguments for keeping receipts. To reconcile your statement to receipts before paying the credit card bill - people make mistakes all the time. I bet if you have an average volume of transactions, you will find at least one mistake in 12 months. To establish baseline spending and calculate a realistic budget. So many people will draft a budget by 'estimating' where their money goes. When it comes to this chore, I think people are about as honest with themselves as exercise and counting calories. Receipts are facts. To abide by record keeping requirements for warranty, business, IRS, etc... Personally, the only thing I've caught so far is Bank of America charging me interest when I pay my bill in full every month! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I collect receipts after paying with a card? ### Answer: In this answer, I won't elaborate on the possibilities of fraud (or pure human error), because something can always go wrong. I will, however, explain why I think you should always keep receipts. When the (monthly or so) time comes to pay your credit card bill, your credit card company sends you a list of transactions. That list has two primary purposes, both of which I would consider equally important: While for the former item, a receipt is not necessary (though it certainly does not hurt showing the receipt along with the bill to provide further proof that the payment was indeed connected to that bill), the latter point does require you to store the receipts so you can check, item-by-item, whether each of the sums is correct (and matched with a receipt at all). So, unless you can actually memorize all the credit card transactions you did throughout the past one or two months, the receipts are the most convenient way of keeping that information until the bill arrives. Yes, your credit card company probably has some safeguards in place to reveal fraud, which might kick in in time (the criteria are mostly heuristical, it seems, with credit cards or legitimate transactions here getting blocked every now and then simply because some travelling of the actual owner was misinterpreted as theft). However, it is your money, it is your responsibility to discover any issues with the bill, just as you would check the monthly transaction list from your bank account line by line. Ultimately, that is why you sign the vendor copy of the receipt when buying something offline; if you discover an issue in your list of transactions, you have to notify your credit card company that you dispute one of the charges, and then the charging vendor has to show that they have your signature for the respective transaction. So, to summarize: Do keep your receipts, use them to check the list of transactions before paying your credit card bill. EDIT: The receipt often cannot be replaced with the bill from the vendor. The bill is useful for seeing how the sum charged by the respective vendor was created, but in turn, such bills often do not contain any payment information, or (when payment was concluded before the bill was printed, as sometimes happens in pre-paid scenarios such as hotel booking) nondescript remarks such as "- PAYMENT RECEIVED -", without any further indication of which one of your credit cards, debit cards, bank accounts, stored value cards, or cash was used. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I exchange my Scottish pounds for English ones? ### Answer: Scottish banknotes are promissary notes of the banks issuing them. Their value will be paid in UK legal tender any time as long as the issuing bank is in business. So they are not going to lose value unless the issuing bank goes bakrupt. Scottish notes may be refused, outside of Scotland, at least, by merchants at their discretion. So if the vote goes the wrong way, merchants in England may refuse accepting these notes even if just to make a point. English notes (those issued by the Bank of England) are the actual UK legal tender. Wether you should change or not is up to you, I believe there's no immenent danger of them becoming worthless any time soon. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Cheapest USD to GBP transfer ### Answer: Use a remitting service such as Ria Money Transfer. Almost all these services allow you to transfer upto $2999 at a time. So, you would be able to transfer the entire amount of $4500 within 2 business days(There is a monthly limit too, but it will definitely be more than $4500). There are no fees to use these services, but they do scrape off a bit on the currency rate. As of today you are getting 624 GBP for $1000 whereas the market rate is $641.95. You still save roughly $17 and 4 transactions, which adds up to more than $100. Here is a link to Ria's website. Other services, include Xoom, Western Union, Money Dart and Money Gram. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Contributing factors to historical increase in trading volume ### Answer: Prior to 1975, commissions for trading stock on the NYSE were fixed at 1% of the amount of the trade. In 1975, the SEC made fixed commission rates illegal, giving rise to discount brokers offering much reduced commission rates. Simultaneously, Electronic Communications Networks (ECNs) gained market share as alternative venues for executing trades. The increased competition led to further declines in commissions. Finally, as technology was widely adopted on Wall Street and human beings were largely taken out of the order execution process, commissions fell further. This had the effect of both drawing in new participants and increasing the rate of transactions of the existing participants (see Day Trading, which was largely unheard of prior to the technology revolution of the 1990s). Most recently, the exchanges themselves have shifted their business model to depend on high frequency traders, and the proportion of trades accounted for by HFT firms ballooned from under 10% in the early 2000s to over 50% today. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Contributing factors to historical increase in trading volume ### Answer: It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds? ### Answer: Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called "active management". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds? ### Answer: There is a survivorship bias in the mutual fund industry. It's not about individual stocks in which those funds invest. Rather, it's in which funds and fund companies/families are still around. The underperforming funds get closed or merged into other funds. Thus they are no longer reported, since they no longer exist. This makes a single company's mutual funds appear to have a better history, on average, than they actually did. Similarly, fund companies that underperform, will go out of business. This could make the mutual fund industry's overall history appear to be better than it actually was. Most companies don't do this to deliberately game the numbers. It's rational on the part of fund companies to close underperforming funds. When a fund has a below average history, investors will likely not invest in it, and will remove their existing money. The fund will shrink while the overhead remains the same, making the fund unprofitable for the company to run. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do mutual fund companies deliberately “censor” their portfolios/funds? ### Answer: If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as "delete[ing] failures". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it "delete[ing] failures" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest "at random", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to "investing at random". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade "at random", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an "ill-posed problem." It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is "no." We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase "market maker" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. 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%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach "fair" coins and "fair" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A "frequency" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be "fair," you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were "fair," but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a "mean return." A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an "all-or-nothing" cost function to evaluate your methodology. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: 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. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: It seems to be that your main point is this: No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? In general, yes, that is true, but... Consider this very bad strategy: Buy one share of stock and sell it one minute later, and repeat this every minute of the day. Obviously you would bleed your account dry with fees. However, even this horrible strategy still meets your criteria because: if this bad strategy had an edge beyond the transaction fees you would likely still make a profit. In other words, your conclusion reduces to an uninteresting statement: If there were no transactions fees, then if your trading system has an edge then you will likely make a profit. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IMHO, that statement, and others made in the question are just obvious things stated in convoluted ways. I don't want to discourage you from thinking about these things though. I personally really enjoy these type of thought experiments. I just feel you missed the mark on this one... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: The previous answers make valid points regarding the risks, and why you can't reasonably compare trading for profit/loss to a roll of the die. This answer looks at the math instead. Your assumption: I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Is incorrect, for the reasons stated in other answers. However, the answer to your question: Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Is "yes". But only because the question is flawed. Consequently it's throwing people in all directions with their answers. But quite simply, in a truly random environment the worst case scenario, no matter how improbable, is that you lose over and over again until you have nothing left. This can happen in sequential rolls of the dice AND in trading securities/bonds/whatever. You could guess wrong for every roll of the die AND all of your stock picks could become worthless. Both outcomes result in $0 (assuming you do not gamble with credit). Tell me, which $0 is "worse"? Given the infinite number of plays that "random" implies, the chance of losing your entire bankroll exists in both scenarios, and that is enough by itself to make neither option "worse" than the other. Of course, the opposite is also true. You could only pick winners, with an unlimited upside potential, but again that could happen with either dice rolls or stock picks. It's just highly improbable. my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? Nope. This is where it all falls apart. Just because your chances of losing it all are similarly improbable, does not make you more likely to win with one method or the other. Regression to the mean, when given infinite, truly random outcomes, makes it impossible to "have an edge". Also, "probabilistically" isn't a word, but "probably" is. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: In theory, in a perfect world, what you state is almost true. Apart from transaction fees, if you assume that the market is perfectly efficient (ie: public information is immediately reflected in a perfect reflection of future share value, in all share prices when the information becomes available), then in theory any transaction you would choose to take is opposed by a reasonable person who is not taking advantage of you, just moving their position around. This would make any and all transactions completely reasonable from a cost-benefit perspective. ie: if the future value of all dividends to be paid by Apple [ie: the value of holding a share in Apple] exactly matches Apple's share price of $1,000, then buying a share for $1,000 is an even trade. Selling a share for $1,000 is also an even trade. Now in a perfectly efficient market, which we have assumed, then there is no edge to valuing a company using your own methods. If you take Apple's financial statements / press releases / reported information, and if you apply modern financial theory to evaluate the future dividends from Apple, you should get the same $1,000 share price that the market has already arrived at. So in this example, why wouldn't you just throw darts at a printout of the S&P 500 and invest in whatever it lands on? Because, even if the 'perfectly efficient market' agrees on the true value of something, different investments have different characteristics. As an example, consider a simple comparison of corporate bonds: Corporations make bond offerings to the public, allowing individual investors to effectively lend money to the corporation, for a future benefit. For simplicity, assume a bond with a 'face value' (the amount to be repaid to the investor on maturity) of $1,000 has these 3 defining characteristics: (1) The price [What the investor pays to acquire it]; (2) Interest payments [how much, if any, the corporation will pay to the investor before maturity, and when those payments will be made]; and (3) a bond rating [which is a third party assessment of how risky the bond is, based on the 'health' of the corporation]. Now if the bond rating agency is perfect in its risk assessment, and if the price of all bond's is fair, then why does it matter who you loan your money to? It matters because different people want different things out of their investments. If you are waiting to make a down payment on a house next year, then you don't want risk - you want to be certain that you will get your cash back, even if it means lower returns. So, even though a high-risk bond may be perfectly priced, it should only be bought by someone willing to bear that risk. If you are retired, and you need your bonds to pay you interest regularly as your sole source of income, then of course a zero-coupon bond [one that pays no interest] is not helpful to you. If you are young, and have a long time to invest, then you may want risk, because you have time to overcome losses and you want to get the most return possible. In addition, taxes are not universal between all investors. Some people benefit from things that would be tax-heavy to their neighbors. For example in Canada, there is a 'dividend tax credit' which reduces the taxes owing on dividends received by a corporation. This credit exists to prevent 'double-taxation', because otherwise the corporation would pay its ~30% of tax, and then a wealthy investor would pay another ~45% of tax. Due to the mechanics of how the credit is calculated, however, someone who makes less money, gets an even lower tax bill than they normally would. This means that someone making under the top tax bracket in Canada, has a tax benefit by receiving dividends. This means that while 2 stocks may be both fairly priced, if one pays dividends and the other doesn't [ie: if the other company instead reinvests more heavily in future projects, creating even more value for shareholders down the road], then someone in the bottom tax brackets may want the dividend paying stock more than the other. In conclusion: Picking investments yourself does require some knowledge to prevent yourself from making a 'bad buy'; this is because the market is not perfectly efficient. As well, specific market mechanics make some trades more costly than they should be in theory; consider for example transaction fees and tax mechanics. Finally, even if you assume that all of the above is irrelevant as a theoretical idea, different investors still have different needs. Just because $1,000,000 is the 'fair' price for a factory in your home town, doesn't mean you might as well convert your retirement savings to buy it as your sole asset. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it accurate to say that if I was to trade something, my probability of success can't be worse than random? ### Answer: Don't compare investing with a roll of the dice, compare it with blackjack and the decision to stand or hit, or put more money on the table (double down or increase bet size) , based on an assessment of the state of the table and history. A naive strategy of say "always hitting to 16" isn't as awful as randomly hitting and standing (which, from time to to time will draw to 21 fair and square) , but there's a basic strategy that gets close to 50% and by increasing or decreasing bet based on counting face cards can get into positive expectations. Randomly buying and selling stock is randomly hitting. Buying a market index fund is like always hitting to 16. Determining an asset allocation strategy and periodically rebalancing is basic strategy. Adjusting allocations based on business cycle and economic indicators is turning skill into advantage. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Self assessment expenses - billing date or payment date? ### Answer: Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't? ### Answer: Check out the questions about why stock prices are what they are. In a nutshell, a stock's value is based on the future prospects of the company. Generally speaking, if a growth company is paying a dividend, that payment is going to negatively affect the growth of the business. The smart move is to re-invest that capital and make more money. As a shareholder, you are compensated by a rising stock price. When a stock isn't growing quickly, a dividend is a better way for a stockholder to realize value. If a gas and electric company makes a billion dollars, investing that money back into the company is not going to yield a large return. And since those types of companies don't really grow too much, the stocks typically trade in a range and don't see the type of appreciation that a growth stock will. So it makes sense to pay out the dividend to the shareholders. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't? ### Answer: The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't? ### Answer: One reason to prefer a dividend-paying stock is when you don't plan to reinvest the dividends. For example, if you're retired and living off the income from your investments, a dividend-paying stock can give you a relatively stable income. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is a stock that pays a dividend preferrable to one that doesn't? ### Answer: Dividend paying stocks are not "better" In particular shareholders will get taxed on the distribution while the company can most likely invest the money tax free in their operations. The shareholder then has the opportunity to decide when to pay the taxes when they sell their shares. Companies pay dividends for a couple of reasons.... 1.) To signal the strength of the company. 2.) To reward the shareholders (oftentimes the executives of the firm get rather large rewards without having to sell shares they control.) 3.) If they don't have suitable investment opportunities in their field. IE they don't have anything useful to do with the money. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Work on the side for my wife's company ### Answer: My understanding (I am not a lawyer or tax expert) is that you are not allowed to work for free, but you can pay yourself minimum wage for the hours worked. There are probably National Insurance implications as well but I don't know. The main thing is, though, that if HMRC think that you've set up this system as a tax avoidance scheme then they're allowed to tax you as though all the income had been yours in the first place. If you are considering such a setup I would strongly advise you to hire a qualified small business accountant who will be familiar with the rules and will be able to advise you on what is and is not possible / sensible. Falling outside the rules (even inadvertently) leaves you liable to a lot of hassle and potentially fines etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Work on the side for my wife's company ### Answer: In the US, you'd run the risk of being accused of fraud if this weren't set up properly. It would only be proper if your wife could show that she were involved, acting as your agent, bookkeeper, etc. Even so, to suggest that your time is billed at one rate but you are only paid a tiny fraction of that is still a high risk alert. I believe the expression "if it quacks like a duck..." is pretty universal. If not, I'll edit in a clarification. note -I know OP is in UK, but I imagine tax collection is pretty similar in this regard. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Work on the side for my wife's company ### Answer: Depending on how much freelance work we're talking about you could set up a limited company, with you and your wife as directors. By invoicing all your work through the limited company (which could have many other benefits for you, an accountant/advisor would... well, advise...) it's the company earning the money, not you or her personally. You can then pay your wife up to £10,000 per year (as of writing this) without income tax kicking in. You would probably have to pay yourself a small amount to minimise exposure to HMRC's snooping, but possibly not... as far as I'm aware the rules do not state anything about working for free, for yourself - and I wouldn't worry about the ethics, you're already paying plenty into HMRC's bank account through your day job! Some good information here if you're interested: https://www.whitefieldtax.co.uk/web/psc-guide/pscguide-how-does-it-all-work-in-practice-salaries-and-dividends/ ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Comparing/reviewing personal health insurance plans for the self-employed ### Answer: I was in your situation a few years ago and I discovered something that worked perfectly for me - a local health insurance broker. I met with her, discussed my needs, reviewed the options with her, then acted. She received a commission from the insurer, so it cost me nothing. I would certainly follow a similar approach again. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Comparing/reviewing personal health insurance plans for the self-employed ### Answer: Here's an old-ish article from the NYT that discusses this. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Comparing/reviewing personal health insurance plans for the self-employed ### Answer: Health insurance is tough, as you know, because the offerings vary dramatically by State, and there is the added complication of the Affordable Care Act, which depending on where and who you are has had either a good or bad impact on the available options. If you are a sole proprietor or other business person, I'd advise talking to someone at a local chamber of commerce. Also, professional organizations like the IEEE or ACM (for IT professionals) often offer catastrophic medical or other health plans. Some employer plans give you the option to continue coverage at a higher cost when COBRA lapses as well. If you can't afford a comprehensive plan, make sure to get something to protect you against pre-existing conditions or hospitalization. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: what are the benefits of setting up an education trust fund for children? ### Answer: Well, first off, if your children are NZ citizens, they can borrow money at 0% interest for tertiary education and I don't see any benefit to not taking free money. A saving account is your money, and will accrue a little bit of interest and you will pay tax on that. A family trust (I hope this is what you mean by trust fund) is a separate financial entity that can be set up to own assets for the benefit of multiple people. For example, if you have a rental property or business and you want the income divided between your children, rather than coming to you, or if you have a bach you want to keep in the family after you die. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market? You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return. This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight. Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - "annuities are sold, not bought") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you. At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you. Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it. Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio. (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is "load") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have "retirement" or "senior" in the name. A good question for any planner is "Are you a fiduciary?" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not "on your side" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The "free" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: I'll be blunt. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice: ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: devastated with our retirement money that we have left ### Answer: Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage? ### Answer: The decision as to what counts as income is up to the bank. You'll need to ask them whether or not rental income can be included in the total. I can offer some anecdotal evidence: when I applied for a mortgage to buy my home, I already had a rental property with a buy-to-let mortgage on it. Initially the bank regarded that property as a liability, not an asset, because it was mortgaged! However, once I was able to show that there was a good history of receiving enough rent, they chose to ignore the property altogether -- i.e. it wasn't regarded as a liability, but it wasn't regarded as a source of income either. More generally, as AakashM says, residential mortgages are computed based on affordability, which is more than just a multiple of your salary. To answer your specific questions: Covered above; it's up to the bank. If you're married, and you don't have a written tenancy agreement, and you're not declaring the "rent" on your tax return, then it seems unlikely that this would be regarded as income at all. Conversely, if your partner is earning, why not put their name on the mortgage application too? Buy-to-let mortgages are treated differently. While it used to be the case that they were assessed on rental income only, nowadays lenders may ask for proof of the landlord's income from other sources. Note that a BTL cannot be used for a property you intend to live in, and a residential mortgage cannot be used for a property you intend to let to tenants -- at least, not without the bank's permission. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage? ### Answer: 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. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage? ### Answer: The days are long gone when offered mortgages were simply based on salary multiples. These days it's all about affordability, taking into account all incomes and all outgoings. Different lenders will have different rules about what they do and don't accept as incomes; these rules may even vary per-product within the same lender's product list. So for example a mortgage specifically offered as buy-to-let might accept rental income (with a suitable void-period multiplier) into consideration, but an owner-occupier mortgage product might not. Similarly, business rules will vary about acceptance of regular overtime, bonuses, and so on. Guessing at specific answers: #1 maybe, if it's a buy-to-let product, Note that these generally carry a higher interest rate than owner-occupier mortgages; expect about 2% more #2 in my opinion it's extremely unlikely that any lender would consider rental income from your cohabiting spouse #3 probably yes, if it's a buy-to-let product ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can rent be added to your salary when applying for a mortgage? ### Answer: I can answer Scenario #3. If you are purchasing a property with buy-to-let intentions […] can you use the rental income exclusively to fund the mortgage repayments? Yes – this is exactly how buy-to-let mortgage applications are evaluated. Lenders generally expect you to fund the mortgage payments with rent. They look for the anticipated monthly rent income to cover a minimum of 125% of the monthly mortgage payment. This is to make sure you can allow for vacant periods, maintenance, compliance with rules and regulations, and still be in profit (i.e. generate a positive yield on your investment). However, buy-to-let (BTL) mortgage lenders also generally expect you to own your own home to begin with. It's up to them, but rare is the lender who will provide a buy-to-let mortgage to a non-owner-occupier. This is because of point 2 above. The lender doesn't want you to end up living in the property because then you'll need to repay the loan capital, since you'll always need somewhere to live. This makes the economics of BTL unfavourable. They look at your application as a business proposal: quite different to a residential mortgage application, which is what your question seems to be addressing. Bottom line: You're right about scenario #3 but it sounds like you're trying to afford a home first, whereas BTL is best viewed as an investment for someone who already has their main residence under ownership (mortgaged or otherwise). As for Scenarios #1 and #2 I can't offer first hand answers but I think Aakash M. and Steve Melnikoff have covered it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Effect on Bond asset allocation if Equity markets crash? ### Answer: what will happen to the valuation of Tom's bond holdings after the equity crash? This is primarily opinion based. What will happen is generally hard to predict. Bond Price Bump due to Demand: Is a possible outcome; this depends on the assumption that the bonds in the said country are still deemed safe. Recent Greece example, this may not be true. So if the investors don't believe that Bonds are safe, the money may move into Real Estate, into Bullion [Gold etc], or to other markets. In such a scenario; the price may not bump up. Bond Price Decline due to Rising Interest Rates: On a rising interest rates, the long-term bonds may loose in value while the short term bonds may hold their value. Related question How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Effect on Bond asset allocation if Equity markets crash? ### Answer: I agree that the cause of the crash can make a huge difference in the effect on the bond market. Here's a few other possibilities: All that to say that there's no definitive answer as to how the bond market will respond to an equity crash. Bonds are much more highly correlated to equities lately, but that could be due to much lower interest rates pushing more of the risk of bonds to the credit worthiness of the issuer, increasing correlation. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth ### Answer: Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth ### Answer: There are two main reasons for the difference between these two numbers: While there are a few people that are wildly wealthy, most of the people with more than 10 million have between 10-50 million dollars. These people shield most of their estate and in the end the tax only effects a small portion of even the wealthy. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth ### Answer: There are two key reasons: Consider a family of four, two kids and two adults, that has a net worth of $20 million. Each of these four people live in a top 1% household. But any of those four people can die, and their estate will not pay any estate tax. Both kids and one spouse can die, and still no estate tax will be paid. Only when the last spouse dies would there be any estate tax. Also, consider a person who dies but whose assets do not flow into their estate. For example, their assets could be held in an inter-vivos trust. People with higher net worths are much more likely to use trusts to avoid or minimize estate taxes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Estate taxes and the top 1 percent by net worth ### Answer: Data is a funny thing. There are many different ways of constructing data sets. Keep in mind, the cite you linked is fine, I follow this kind of site when I am data mining. They got their data from the Government, and there's no reason to doubt its validity. Keep in mind, it's a survey. They extrapolate from a survey of a small population - In the 2016 survey, 6,254 families were interviewed, and in the 2013 survey, 6,026 were interviewed. 1) Let's set that aside, and look at the numbers as if they were gospel. $10.37M net worth to be top 1%. That's people at all different ages, and not the wealth cutoff for those dying, else the estate tax would hit closer to the 1%. Given the limited data set, I'd only hypothesize, if we graphed the age (along the bottom, X axis) vs number of people, the curve would peek in mid to late 60's, as people retire. With 20 years for the couple to spend and gift, it's not tough to imagine that by the time they pass away, the taxable estate $11M couple falls to just .2%. 2) When the estate tax impacted estates over just $600K, and my daughter was born, we set up a trust. Out net worth was barely positive, but insurance alone would have created enough wealth to have our orphaned child be subject to the tax of our estate before she received a dime. We also used the trust to fund her college. As a completed gift, had we made some bad decisions and lost it all, at least that money would be protected. Keep in mind, there are different flavors of trusts, but it's safe to say that in a survey to collect data, the million dollar+ trusts are considered family wealth. Not tough to imagine a good fraction of those families over $10M have a nice chunk already protected this way. 3) Last - For any illiquid assets, there's a discount that gets applied, typically 30%. I own a ranch, and want to start gifting it to the kids, the process involves creating stock, with restrictions, as a way to transfer the fractions required to gift the $14K/yr per person combination. (That is, a couple can gift 14x4 = $56K to a child with a spouse. 4 kids, all married, and the gifting is $224K/yr, $320K at full valuation. Again, these gifts may be to irrevocable trusts, and still thought of as their wealth. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: Saving for college you have a couple of options. 529 plans are probably the best bet for most people wanting to save for their kids college education. You can put a lot of money away ~$300k and you may get a state tax deduction. The downside is if you're kid doesn't go to college you may end up eating the 10% penalty. State specific prepaid tuition plans. The upside is you know roughly the return you are going to get on your money. The downside is your kid has to go to a state school in the state you prepaid or there are likely withdrawal penalties. For the most part these really aren't that great of a deal any more. ESAs are also an option but they only allow you to contribute $2k/year, but you have more investment options than with the 529 plans. Traditional and ROTH IRA accounts can also be used to pay for higher education. I wouldn't recommend this route in general but if you maxed out your 401k and weren't using your IRA contribution limits you could put extra money here and get more or really different flexibility than you can with a 529 account. I doubt IRA's will ever be asked for on a FAFSA which might be helpful. Another option is to save the money in a regular brokerage account. You would have more flexibility, but lower returns after taxes. One advantage to this route is if you think your kid might be borderline for financial aid a year or two before he starts college you could move this money into another investment that doesn't matter for financial aid purposes. A few words of caution, make sure you save for retirement before saving for your kids college. He can always get loans to pay for school but no one is going to give you a loan to pay for your retirement. Also be cautious with the amount of money you give your adult child, studies have shown that the more money that parents give their adult children the less successful they are compared to their peers. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: (Congratulations on the little one on the way.) I'd recommend saving outside of tax-advantaged accounts. Pay your taxes and be done with them. I'd recommend putting your old-age fund first before shelling out a lot of money for college. I'd recommend not shelling out a lot of money for college. Ideally, none. There are ways today to get a four-year degree for $15,000. Not $15,000 per year. $15,000 total. Check here. (This isn't an affiliate link.) They can pay for this themselves! I'd recommend making sure you hold the hammer. Don't let them party on your nickel. I'd recommend teaching your kids to "fish" as soon as possible. Help them start a business. They could be millionaires by the time they're teenagers. Then they can make their own money. You won't have to give them a dime. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: Being in the same situation, and considering that money doesn't need to be available until 2025, I just buy stocks. I plan to progressively switch to safer options as time passes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: Saving for school is [fundamentally] no different than saving for any other major purchase: in addition to some of the great answers already provided, here are a couple other thoughts: Just to have the [simplified] numbers handy: If you can increase that to $2000/yr, after 18 years: One final thought - I would personally avoid the 529 plans because if your child decides to not go to school (eg goes in the Coast Guard, decides to be a farmer, enters the Peace Corps, etc), you're penalized on withdrawal, whereas with any other savings/investment methodology, you won't have those penalties. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: Others have given some good answers. I'd just like to chime in with one more option: treasury I-series bonds. They're linked to an inflation component, so they won't lose value (in theory). You can file tax returns for your children "paying" taxes (usually 0) on the interest while they're minors, so they appreciate tax-free until they're 18. Some of my relatives have given my children money, and I've invested it this way. Alternatively, you can buy the I-bonds in your own name. Then if you cash them out for your kids' education, the interest is tax-free; but if you cash them out for your own use, you do have to pay taxes on the interest. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Strategies for putting away money for a child's future (college, etc.)? ### Answer: I know this is a little off the wall but I bought a rental property for my son's tuition. The tenants pay down the mortgage for the next 12 years and it (hopefully) also appreciates in value. Worst case scenario is I come out with a rental and a kid with no education. He doesn't go then there's no skin off my back. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are my chances at getting a mortgage with Terrible credit but High income ### Answer: With bad credit but good income, I would simply save a large down payment. You're much more likely to get a mortgage with 25% down and a history of recently saving that 25% to show. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are my chances at getting a mortgage with Terrible credit but High income ### Answer: I also am paying roughly twice as much in rent as a mortgage payment would be on the type of house I have been looking at, so I'd really like to purchase a house if possible. Sounds like I need to rain on your parade a bit: there's a lot more to owning a house than the mortgage. Property tax, insurance, PMI, and maintenance are things that throw this off. You'll also be paying more interest than normal given your recent credit history. It's still possible that buying is better than renting, but one really should run the detailed math on this. For example, looking at houses around where I live, insurance, property tax and special assessments over the course of a year roughly equal the mortgage payments annually. You probably won't be able to get a loan just yet. If you've just started your new job it will take a while to build a documentable income history sufficient for lenders. But take heart! As you take the next year to save up a down payment / build up an emergency fund you'll discover that credit score improves with time. However, it's crucial that you don't do anything to mess with the score. Pay all your bills on time. Don't take out a car loan. Don't close your old revolving accounts. But most of all, don't worry. Rent hurts (I rent too) but in many parts of the US owning hurts more, as your property values fall. A house down the street from my dear old mother has been on the market for several months at a price 33 percent lower than her most recent appraisals. I'm comfortable waiting until markets stabilize / start rising before jumping on real estate. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are my chances at getting a mortgage with Terrible credit but High income ### Answer: First step, pull a copy of your credit report, and score. You should monitor that score and do what you can to bring it up. Your chances are far better if (a) you first save a sizable downpayment, and (b) go with a local bank that doesn't just write the mortgage and sell it. Better still, go to that local bank and inquire about REO (real estate owned by the bank) property. These are properties they foreclosed on and depending how they are carrying them, you might find decent opportunities. As a matter of logic, a local bank that owns these specific properties (as compared to debt pools where big banks have piles of paper owned fractionally) are more willing to get a new owner in and paying a new loan. Congrats on the new, higher, income. I'd suggest you first build the emergency fund before the downpayment fund. Let us know how it goes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are my chances at getting a mortgage with Terrible credit but High income ### Answer: The bottom line, is that you are doing the right thing now: correcting your past indiscretions. Get those collections taken care of, then start saving for a down payment. Of course, during this time, you should pay your bills early or on time. During that time your credit will improve dramatically. I bet that this will not be an issue once you have your down payment saved, so the point is moot. However, with outstanding collections it is very unlikely you will get a loan. In my own case, I had to pay a collection, that I did not owe, in order to obtain a mortgage. It was for a small amount and the loan officer told me that "it is the cost of doing business". Ship $150 and my loan when through free and clear. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Saving for a down payment on a new house, a few years out. Where do we put our money next? ### Answer: If you're absolutely certain that you won't buy a house within a year or so, I'd still be tempted to put some of the money into short-term CDs (ie, a max of 12 months). I think that at the moment CDs are a bit of a mug's game though because you'd hardly find one that offers better interest rates than some of the few savings accounts that still offer 1%+ interest. A savings account is probably where I'd put the money unless I could find a really good deal on a CD, but I think you might have to check if they've got withdrawal limits. There are a couple of savings accounts out there that pay at least 1% (yes, I know it's pitiful) so I'd seek out one or two of those. From memory, both Sallie Mae and Amex offer those and I'm sure there are a couple more. It's not great that your money is growing at less than inflation but if you're saving for something like a downpayment on a house I would think that (nominal) capital preservation is probably more important than the potential for a higher return with the associated higher risk. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Saving for a down payment on a new house, a few years out. Where do we put our money next? ### Answer: In October 2011 in the United States, you just don't have any options. Save your money in a savings account and that is the best you can do. Your desire to buy a house means you are a saver not an investor, and you risk tolerance on this pile of money is 0. Save it in a bank account; I highly doubt chasing an interest rate will pay off with any significance. (being highly dependent on your opinion of significant) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Saving for a down payment on a new house, a few years out. Where do we put our money next? ### Answer: Rewards cards charge the merchant more to process. So the card is making money when you use it. So if your concern is for the cards going away because they are losing money... That is not going to happen because you use it too much. If their business model has them losing money because they are giving away more rewards than they make then they are going to go away anyway. TANSTAAFL. If you are looking for security and the ability to access your funds when you need them then a standard savings account works great. We have a few Credit Unions that have over 2% return while its not much it is safe and liquid and better than the Stock Market did in the last year. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does investing in a company support it? ### Answer: Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does investing in a company support it? ### Answer: We're not "helping" the company in a comparable sense to donating money to a non-profit. As you wrote, investing in a company deals with ownership and in a sense, becoming a part owner of a company, even if it is a minor ownership, indicates that we sense it has some sort of value, whether that's ethical, financial or tangible value. As investors, we should take responsibility and ensure that our voices are heard when voting occurs (sadly, not too common). EDIT: @thepassiveinvestor makes an excellent point that this paragraph only applies to IPOs: Keep in mind, when we purchase stock in a company, that money is used for business purposes. It also signals value to the market as well, if enough money or enough investors buy the stock. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does investing in a company support it? ### Answer: As others have said, it simply makes you a part owner. Even if you have ethical objections to a company's behavior, I'd argue that investing in it and using the proxy votes to influence the company's decisions might be even more ethical than not investing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Does investing in a company support it? ### Answer: As said by others, buying shares of a company will not support it directly. But let's think about two example companies: Company A, which has 90 % stocks owned by supporters, and Company B, which has only 1 % of stocks owned by supporters. Both companies release bad news, for example profits have decreased. In Company B, most investors might want to sell their stock quickly and the price will plummet. In Company A, the supporters continue believing in the company and will not want to sell it. The price will drop less (usually, but it can drop even more if the sellers of Company A are very desperate to get rid of the stock). So, why is it important for the company to have a high stock price? In the short-term, it's not important. One example is that the company can release more stocks and receive more financing by doing that. Other reasons are listed here: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/03/020703.asp ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you. Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken). The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance. Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900) Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same. Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair). Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900) 100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850) Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower. The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value. That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds "unfair". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as transportation or housing. The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be "better off" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: As someone who has worked for both an insurance carrier and an insurance agent, the reason people buy insurance is two fold: to spread risk out, and to get the benefits (when applicable) of approaching risk as a group. What you are really doing when you buy insurance is you are buying in to a large group of people who are sharing risk. You put money in that will help people when they take a loss, and in exchange get a promise of having your losses covered. There is an administrative fee taken by the company that runs the group in order to cover their costs of doing business and their profits that they get for running the group well (or losses they take if they run it poorly.) Some insurances are for profit, some are non-profit; all work on the principle of spreading risk around though and taking risk as a larger group. So let's take a closer look at each of the advantages you get from participating in insurance. The biggest and most obvious is the protection from catastrophic loss. Yes, you could self-insure with a group size of one, by saving your money and having no overhead (other than your time and the time value of your money) but that has a cost in itself and also doesn't cover you against risk up front if you aren't already independently wealthy. A run of bad luck could wipe you out entirely since you don't have a large group to spread the risk around. The same thing can still happen to insurance companies as well when the group as a whole takes major losses, but it's less likely to occur because there are more rare things that have to go wrong. You pay an administrative overhead for the group to be run for you, but you have less exposure to your own risks in exchange for a small premium. Another significant but less visible advantage is the benefit of being part of a large group. Insurance companies represent a large group of people and lots of business, so they can get better rates on dealing with recovering from losses. They can negotiate for better health care rates or better repair rates or cheaper replacement parts. This can potentially save more than the administrative overhead and profit that they take off the top, even when compared to self-insuring. There is an element of gambling to it, but there are also very real financial benefits to having predictable costs. The value of that predictability (and the lesser need for liquid assets) is what makes insurance worth it for many people. The value of this group benefit does decrease a lot as the value of the insurance coverage (the amount it pays out) decreases. Insurance for minor losses has a much smaller impact on liquidity and is much easier to self insure. Cheaper items that have insurance also tend to be high risk items, so the costs tend to be very high relative to the amount of protection. If you are financially able, it may make more sense to self-insure in these cases, particularly if you tend to be more cautious. It may make sense for those who are more prone to accidents with their devices to buy insurance, but this selection bias also drives the cost up further. Generally, the reason to buy insurance on something like a cellphone is because you expect you will break it. You are going to end up paying for an entire additional phone over time anyway and most such policies stop paying out after the first replacement anyway. The reason why people buy the coverage anyway, even when it really isn't in their best interest is due to two factors: being risk averse, as base64 pointed out, and also being generally bad at dealing with large numbers. On the risk averse side, they think of how much they are spending on the item (even if it is less compared to large items like cars or houses) and don't want to lose that. On the bad at dealing with large numbers side, they don't think about the overall cost of the coverage and don't read the fine print as to what they are actually getting coverage for. (This is the same reason that you always see prices one cent under the dollar.) People often don't really subconsciously get that they are paying more even if they would be able to eat the loss, so they pay what feels like a small amount to offset a large risk. The risk of loss is a higher fear than the known small, easy payment that keeps the risk away and the overall value proposition isn't even considered. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: Regarding auto insurance, you have to look at the different parts. In the United Sates most states do require a level of specific coverage for all drivers. That is to make sure that if you are at fault there is money available to pay the victims. That payment may be for damage to their car or other property, but it also covers medical costs. Many policies also cover you if the other driver doesn't have insurance. The policy that covers the loss of the vehicle is required if you have a loan or are leasing the car. Somebody else owns it while there is a loan, so they can and do require you to pay to protect the vehicle. If there i no loan you don't have to have that portion of a policy. Other parts such as towing, roadside assistance, and rental cars replacement may be required by the insurance standards for your state, or might be almost impossible to drop because all insurance companies include it to stay competitive with their competition. Dropping the non-required parts of the coverage is acceptable when you don't have a loan. Some people do drop it to save money. But that does mean you are self insuring. If you can afford to self insure a new car, great. The interesting thing is that some people have more than enough assets to self inure the non-required part of auto insurance. But then they realize that they do need to up their umbrella liability insurance. This is to protect them from somebody deciding that their resources make them a tempting target when they are involved in a collision. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: One reason is that insurance gives you tranquility. Without insurance, you live with the uncertainty of not knowing if/when disaster is going to strike. Insurance allows you to trade this uncertainty for regular monthly/yearly payments. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: There's an old saying among commodities producers... If it's likely to happen, but won't kill you, you hedge (save/"self-insure", options, futures). If it's not likely to happen, but would kill you, you insure. Hedging and insuring are both about managing risk. If you feel there is no risk at all, you don't need to do either. But feeling that you have no risk at all is somewhat naive. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: (Disclosure - I am a real estate agent, involved with houses to buy/sell, but much activity in rentals) I got a call from a man and his wife looking for an apartment. He introduced itself, described what they were looking for, and then suggested I google his name. He said I'd find that a few weeks back, his house burned to the ground and he had no insurance. He didn't have enough savings to rebuild, and besides needing an apartment, had a building lot to sell. Insurance against theft may not be at the top of your list. Don't keep any cash, and keep your possessions to a minimum. But a house needs insurance for a bank to give you a mortgage. Once paid off, you have no legal obligation, but are playing a dangerous game. You are right, it's an odds game. If the cost of insurance is .5% the house value and the chance of it burning down is 1 in 300 (I made this up) you are simply betting it won't be yours that burns down. Given that for most people, a paid off house is their largest asset, more value that all other savings combined, it's a risk most would prefer not to take. Life insurance is a different matter. A person with no dependents has no need for insurance. For those who are married (or have a loved one), or for parents, insurance is intended to help survivors bridge the gap for that lost income. The 10-20 times income value for insurance is just a recommendation, whose need fades away as one approaches independence. I don't believe in insurance as an investment vehicle, so this answer is talking strictly term. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why buy insurance? ### Answer: This is just an addition to base64's answer. In order to maximize your overall wealth (and wellbeing) in a long run, it is not enough to look only at the expected value (EV). In his example of always keeping $9850 or having $10000 99% of the time, EV in the second case is greater ($9900 > $9850) and if you are Bill Gates than you should not take an insurance in this case. But if your wealth is a lot less than that you should take an insurance. Take a look at Kelly criterion and utility functions. If I offer you to take 100 million dollars (no strings attached) or to take a risk to get 200 million dollars 60% of the time (and $0 40% of the time), would you take that risk? You shouldn't but Bill Gates should take that risk because that would be a very good investment for him. Utility functions can help you choose if you want an insurance or not. Maybe you want to insure your house because the value of the house is a large percentage of your wealth but on the other hand you don't need to insure your car if it is very easy for you to afford another one (but not easy to afford another house). Lets calculate what your wealth should be in order not to take this $150 insurance on a $10000 item. If you pay $150 for an insurance you have guaranteed $9850. But choosing not to take an insurance is the same as betting $9850 in order to gain $150 99% of the time. By using Kelly criterion formula fraction of the wealth needed to make this bet is: [p(b+1)-1]/b = [0.99(150/9850+1) -1]/ (150/9850) = 1/3. That means that if your wealth greater than $29950 you don't need an insurance. But if you want to be sure it is advised to use fractional Kelly betting (for example you could multiply fraction by 1/2) and in that case if your wealth is more than $59900 you don't need an insurance for this item. ###end

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.