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: Merchant dispute with airline over missed flight, and which credit cards offer protection? ### Answer: You have no grounds for a refund. The flight took off on time, and you chose not to be on board. The fact that the airline could not guarantee ahead of time that the flight would leave on time is not relevant. You can certainly try to dispute the charge with the airline, and it sounds like you have done so. The airline correctly indicates that your dispute is unfounded. You can call up your credit card company and explain the situation, and they may accept your dispute. However, I am not aware of any credit card that would reimburse you (that is, issue a chargeback) in this situation. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic. It sucks that you felt you could not rely on the airline, and are now out some money. Fundamentally, though, this was your choice. The airline would be obligated to reimburse you the cost of your flight, or book you on another flight, if the flight was cancelled due to bad weather or other issues, but they owe you nothing if the flight took off on schedule. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Merchant dispute with airline over missed flight, and which credit cards offer protection? ### Answer: What you are looking for is travel insurance. I have never heard of this being offered as a credit card perk, but there might be something out there. You can buy this separately, but only you can decide if it is worth the costs. To me, it would seem to only be worth it for something quite expensive, like a cruise that costs thousands of dollars. The more you travel, the less likely it is to be worth it, since at some point the cost of one canceled trip is less than the insurance paid on the rest of the trips that went through fine. As a frequent traveller, I recommend that you build some flexibility into your plans, especially during the winter. It is not always possible, but try not to need to be somewhere the day of or the day after your flight. Try to book flights early in the day, as they are less likely to be delayed by problems in flights before them, and you have more options for rebooking. Flight delays due to weather and mechanical problems are not uncommon, and with generally full flights it is sometimes hard to be rebooked in a reasonable amount of time. Finally, be nice to the gate agents and other airline personel. In general, they aren't any happier about delays than you are (flight crews want to get home too) and don't have any power over weather or mechanical delays. Being rude to them will not help, and will make them less likely to go out of their way to find a solution. Be assertive in asking for what you want, but a smile and a kind word goes a long way. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Merchant dispute with airline over missed flight, and which credit cards offer protection? ### Answer: EDIT To answer what I think you question is: I do not know of anything other than trip cancellation insurance. And you must be very careful that the policy you purchase for your trip covers the circumstance you described. Essentially, you opted not to take the flight. Not all trip cancellation policies will cover that. How to Find Trip Cancellation Insurance Getting Your Money Back Now This is an Act of God in the insurance world. You cannot reasonably expect the airline to know the future weather pattern anymore than you could, and therefore, since the plane did fly, you owe them the money based on the ticket you bought. You didn't just buy a ticket, there is a contract with rules about refunds and transferring and such. It is a bummer situation, and I understand you point of view, but this isn't the airline's fault. If anybody is to blame for you missing your flight, and therefore not getting a refund, it is your employer. Their requirements for you be in one city and then another are the cause. While your employer cannot predict the weather, they are ultimately the ones who could give you the okay to be late. If you absolutely cannot be late, and it was critical that you drive out and miss your flight, then your company gets to pay for the flight AND the car. That is the cost of doing business for them. This is also why, when flying for business, that you pay the higher price and get the refundable / transferable ticket. They cost more, but situations like these illustrate they are worth it for the company. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income? ### Answer: I think you came up with a worthy Masters/PhD research project, it is a great question. This is in Australia so it is difficult for me to have complete perspective. However, I can speak about the US of A. To your first point relatively few people inherit their wealth. According to a brief web search about 38% of billionaires, and 20% of millionaires inherited their wealth. The rest are self-made. Again, in the US, income mobility is very common. Some act like high level earners are just born that way, but studies have shown that a great deal of income mobility exists. I personally know people that have grown up without indoor plumbing, and extremely poor but now earn in the top 5% of wage earners. Quid's points are valid. For example a Starbucks, new I-Phone, and a brake job on your car are somewhat catastrophic if your income is 50K/year, hurts if your income is 100K, and an inconvenience if you make 250K/year. These situations are normal and happen regularly. The first person may have to take a pay day loan to pay for these items, the second credit card interest, the third probably has the money in the bank. All of this exaggerates the effect of an "emergency" on one's net worth. To me there is also a chicken-and-egg effect in wealth building and income. How does one build wealth? By investing wisely, planning ahead, budgeting, delaying gratification, finding opportunities, etc... Now if you take those same skills to your workplace isn't it likely you will receive more responsibility, promotions and raises? I believe so. And this too exaggerates the effect on one's net worth. If investing helps you to earn more, then you will have more to invest. To me one of the untold stories of this graph is not just investing, but first building a stable financial base. Having a sufficient emergency fund, having enough and the right kind of insurance, keeping loans to a minimum. Without doing those things first investments might need to be withdrawn, often at an inopportune time, for emergency purposes. Thanks for asking this! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income? ### Answer: There are a lot of forces at play here, one of which is addressed in your second bullet point. Housing, transportation, food, and healthcare are pretty much the staple expenses of a modern day human. While these expenses all have a range from minimum required to function and luxurious all humans incur these costs. The lower rung wage earners earn an amount closer to their actual costs than higher earners. As income scales up these expenses typically also scale up with different lifestyle choices. There reaches a breaking point though where is so much excess to your income that you begin meaningfully spending on investments; you may also begin to take a meaningful portion of your compensation in securities rather than currency. In times where the economy is booming, folks who hold assets in securities rather than currency really win. In 2008 people in that highest rung really took a wealth hit (and probably an income hit). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the highest quintile the only quintile whose wealth exceeds its income? ### Answer: In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is there any advantage to owning equity in a company compared to a royalty agreement? ### Answer: Each way you go is a little bit of a gamble. Owning equity in the company is best in situations where you can trade and sell that equity, or where the dilution of your royalty product would affect your returns, or if you can maintain a certain equity stake without working at the company or if you can hold out on taking equity to reinvest profits for the purposes of growth. The royalty is best in situations where you're getting a portion of the gross, since you get paid as a creditor, no matter how the company is performing, or if you intend to collect royalties after you leave the company. Now for your situation: if your royalties are fluctuating with profit instead of gross and your equity is tied to your continued partnership and not subject to potential growth... then they're pretty much both workarounds for the same thing, you've removed the particular advantages for each way of receiving payment. If the company ever does buy out or go public, how much of your additional X earning a month would you have to then re-invest to get an equity stake? And for royalties, if another developer came aboard, or your company bought another company, how much would this dilute your IP contribution? So, aside from the gambling nature of the issue, I'm not sure your tax calculation is right. You can take equity profit as dividend, as long as you're collecting a sufficient salary (this prevents a business from declaring all profits as a dividend). This would put those profits into a different tax bracket, 15% capital gains. Or if all profits are equitably split, you could take part as salary, part as dividend. As well, as someone who's making active income off of their IP, not passive income, you're supposed to file a Schedule C, not a Schedule E, so your royalties would include your self employment taxes. The schedule E is for royalties where the author isn't actively in the field or actually self employed in that area, or if you own royalties on something you didn't create. Should you keep the royalties then go to another job field or retire then your royalties could go on a Schedule E. Now, a tax advantage may exist on a Schedule C if you can write off certain health and business expenses reducing your income that you can't on a Schedule E, though it'd probably be difficult to write off more than the adjusted self employment cost savings of a Schedule E. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: There's an aspect to this question that I really love. In general, it's a question about consumer behavior that can be expanded to inquire about the purchasing profile of any luxury good. Who buys $500 pocketbooks, $1000 wristwatches, etc? I can offer one observation regarding the car. Two close neighbors, both couples drive cars valued well above what my wife and I drive. Both families moved, and shared with us that they failed to save for their kid's college tuition. My response was to feel that this was a choice they made. As I commented to my daughter, "We can afford anything, we just can't afford everything." Our budget started with saving both for retirement and college. Very little eating out, and modest vacations, cars, and clothing. This story is getting more common for us as our peers have high school age children. As others have mentioned, the millionaire next door does not drive a Ferrari or wear a Rolex. To some extent, if you were able to peek at the budgets of these car buyers, you'll find what members here would consider at best, an interesting set of priorities. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: How can people afford luxury cars? The same way they can afford anything: by finding it cheaply, saving for it, or adjusting their priorities. Company cars - either paid for by the company, or as part of a bonus/compensation/salary sacrifice scheme. I have friends who drive luxury cars, but they pay £200/month - not much more than, for example, finance on a used Honda People who have paid off their mortgage. There are people who spend a decade pouring every cent they have into a mortgage. Once paid off, they have £500-1500 a month "spare" People who have different priorities to you. I'm not bothered about big houses and holidays, but I love cars: I'd rather spend an extra £100/month on my car and have a holiday every 2 years, not every year People who only run one car in the family: if you're running two cars at £200/month, then discover one of you can work from home, you could have one £400 car and still be saving money on running costs. People who don't have (or want) children. Children are expensive, if they aren't part of your plans then you can save a lot of money for luxuries. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Keep in mind your household income is in the top 20%, which does not translate to wealth. Given a healthy income, and no debt, other then a small house payment, you probably have a decent amount of free cash flow. This could easily be used to buy a car on time… which a lot of people do. Congratulations on being different. Having said that, living as you do, you will likely be wealthier than your income suggests. If you invested the amount you saved on car payments for an average car you can become a muli-millionaire. Doing that alone can put you in the top 10% of the wealthiest in this nation. Keep in mind 76% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, so there is a sizable portion of the population that make more than you do, yet one costly emergency can cause them to spiral into significant financial difficulty. News flash: Emergencies happen. If I am not being clear, you are living wisely! I would recommend reading The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind. You will understand that not following the whims of advertisers is good for your bottom line and that it is good to be different from the general population. One of my favorite stories from the author is these yuppies hires the author to find them rich people to sell their products. The author gets the rich people by offering them cash, albeit a relatively small amount considering their wealth (about $200) and lunch. The yuppies complain that the guys don’t “look rich” as there are no fancy suits or Rolex watches. One of the rich guys likes the pitch so much in inquires on how he can buy the company. There are a lot of lessons in that short anecdote. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: A while back I sold cars for a living. Over the course of 4 years I worked for 3 different dealerships. I sold new cars at 2 and used at the last one. When selling new cars I found that the majority of people buying the higher end cars honestly shouldn't have been - 80%+. They almost always came in owing more on their trades then they were worth, put down very little cash and were close to being financially strapped. From a financial perspective these deals were hard to close, not because the buyer was picky but rather because their finances were a mess. Fully half, and probably more, we had to switch from the car they initially wanted down to a much cheaper version or try to convert to a lease because it was the only way the bank would loan the money. We called them "$30,000 millionaires" because they didn't make a whole lot but tried to look like they did. As a salesman you knew you were in serious trouble when they didn't even try to negotiate. Around 2% of the deals I did were actual cash deals - meaning honest cash, not those who came in with a pre-approved loan from a bank. These were invariably for used cars about 3 to 4 years old and they never had a trade in. The people doing this always looked comfortable but never dressed up, you wouldn't even look at them twice. The negotiations were hard because they knew exactly how much that car should go for and wouldn't even pay that. It was obvious they knew the value of money. That said, I've been in the top 3% of wage earners for about 20 years and at no point have I considered myself in a position to "afford" a new "luxury" car. IMHO, there are far more important things you can do with that kind of money. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: In addition to those who are wealthy (not the same as high income), there are also a certain number of people whose professional livelihood is enhanced by projecting wealth/income they may or may not have. For example, some consultants, lawyers, financial advisors or other salespeople. The same is true of luxury homes for industries where entertaining clients and associates is expected. These people are essentially making an educated bet that the additional sales they expect to make will outweigh the additional expense of the luxury items, similar to purchasing advertising. But in many cases, people are either living beyond their current income, or living beyond their long-term income by failing to save for when they are too old/sick to work. Additionally, many car brands that we traditionally associate with luxury have created mid-priced lines in the $30-40K range recently, so it is possible that some of the cars you are seeing are not as expensive as you might expect. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Partly I suspect this is selection bias. You say you see so many luxury cars go by. But if you're looking for them, you're going to notice them. Have you calculated the actual percentage? Do they make up 50% of the cars that pass a specific point in a specific period of time? Or just 10% if you really counted? You say you live in Baltimore county, Maryland. That's a relatively wealthy area, so I'd expect the percentage of luxury cars to be higher than the national average. You'd likely see considerably fewer in the backwoods of Mississippi. That said, some people who own luxury cars can't really afford them. I'm reminded of a wonderful TV commercial I saw recently where a man is showing off all his material goods, he talks about his big house, and his swimming pool, and his fancy car, with a big smile on his face, standing tall, and generally looking proud and happy. And then he says, "How do I do it?" And suddenly his expression changes to complete despair, he slumps down, and says, "I'm in debt up to my eyeballs." It turns out to be a commercial for a debt-counseling service. Some people put very high value on owning a fancy car and are willing to sacrifice on other things. If having a big fancy car is more important to you then, say, having a nice house or the latest computer or a big screen TV or dining out more often or going on more expensive vacations or whatever you have to give up to get the car, well, that's your decision. Personally I don't care much about a fancy car, I just want something that gets me where I want to go. And I've always figured that with an expensive car, you have to constantly worry about getting in an accident and damaging or destroying it. If you put your money into a big fancy house, at least houses rarely collide with each other. Personally, I make a nice income too. And I have a $500/month mortgage and zero car payment because I drive a 2003 pickup that I bought with cash. But I have two kids in college and I'm trying to get them through with no debt, that's where all my money is going. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: I'll read between the lines: you're (justifiably) feeling smart about how you manage your money: debt-free, smart about your spending, saving for retirement, etc. But you're looking at all those fancy cars and feeling a little left out. And Americans especially have a love for automobiles -- it's not just transportation, a car is a status symbol. Yes, some of those people afford their cars just fine. But a lot of people out there are AWFUL about saving and spend recklessly. Americans are notoriously bad at saving for retirement, for example. So if they aren't saving, where does that money go? They buy stuff they don't need. They live paycheck-to-paycheck. They run up debt. They buy cars. Overspending on cars is so easy to do: leases have low payments, or you can get a 6 year loan. There are many financial tricks for people that think only in terms of monthly payments. So instead of lamenting that the grass is greener as all those BMWs whiz by, smile deeply and enjoy that feeling of sleeping well at night instead of stressing out about the next credit card bill and car payment waiting for you in the mailbox. (And at the same time, if you really want a luxury car and want that to be a priority, you can make it happen and not go broke. Get a late model year certified pre-owned vehicle just out of lease, for example. Saves a ton of money, is still under warranty, and satisfies the lust for luxury.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: It's all about what you value personally. I'm mid-30s and drive a $40K "luxury" sports car. I also happen to wear a $6K wristwatch every day. I purchased both of these items because I thought they were beautiful when I saw them. On the flip side, because I spent 6 years living below the poverty line, I instinctively spend almost nothing on a daily basis. My food budget is less than $50 a week, and I never go out to eat. I wear my clothes and shoes and coats until they have holes, and I drove my previous car (a Toyota) into the ground. My cell phone is 5 years old. The walls of my apartment are bare. I don't have cable TV, I don't subscribe to newspapers or magazines, and I don't own a pet. In all of these cases I don't feel like I'm "sacrificing" anything; food and clothes and cell phones and pets just don't matter to me. If you truly feel that you're missing something in your life by not having a luxury car -- that owning one would be more satisfying than owning the corresponding tens of thousands of dollars -- then go for it. Just be sure to consider all the other things that money could buy before you do. Lastly, buy in cash. Don't make monthly payments unless you enjoy giving money away to the bank! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: It very much depends on whether you want to drive around in an expensive car, or whether you want an expensive car parked on your driveway. And whether you want to buy a new car, or a used one. And whether you know a reliable garage that doesn't rip you off or not. For example, if my wife who drives maybe 5,000 miles a year wanted a 5 series BMW, we could buy a five year old one with 120,000 miles, for about £120 per month purchase price if it lasts 6 years. 11 year old and 150,000 miles should be no problem for that kind of car. So that's quite affordable. For me, driving 25,000 miles a year, the numbers are quite different. Fact is, if you drive around in my wider neighbourhood, you will sometimes see very expensive cars parked in front of very rundown houses. Some people find it more important to drive around in an expensive car than to live in a nice place. That's priorities. Many people can afford expensive cars if they rearrange their priorities (and I'm not saying it's a good thing). PS. If you want to be seen in an expensive car (for example, you take your wife out), you can always rent a car for a day or two. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Most of the people I know that own them are slightly older, and thus in their prime earning years, and many have paid off their homes. That can free up $1000 a month or more in monthly expenses, which would easily cover a nice luxury car payment. If you've got it, and are into cars, why not? What's the point in having the biggest tombstone in the graveyard? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: I don't think you're missing anything on the math side as far as the payments. Likewise, it may seem everyone's driving a nicer car, but I'm going to predict that's based on area and a few other factors (for instance, my used car feels like riches in a college town). The behavior of why people would pay money, especially with high interest debt, for something is a little different. To explain the behavior behind people who purchase luxury cars: for some people, a car is a purchase that they value, similar to a person valuing the clothes they wear, the house they live in, or the equipment they buy and either borrowing or paying full price on an expensive car is worth it to them. We can call it a status symbol dismissively and criticize the financial waste without realizing, "Wait, this is something they value" like a rare book collector likes rare books (would a rare book collector pass on borrowing money if it meant a once-in-a-lifetime rare book purchase opportunity?). Have you ever felt, "Wow this is cool/awesome/amazing" with something? Basically, that's how many of them feel toward these cars. As much as I'd love to say they're only doing it for status (because I'm not a car person), that's actually somewhat de-humanizing and the more I've met people like this, the more I've realized this is their "thing" and to them it's totally worth it (even with all the debt). I have no doubt that there's a percentage of them who truly may be misled - maybe they don't realize the full cost of borrowing money or leasing. Still, for those who don't care the full cost, that's because it's their thing. We can all agree that it's still not wise to do financially (borrow on a luxury vehicle), and it won't change that some people will do it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Each of us makes our own way in life, making choices based upon or own needs and desires. Some of us choose to live simple lives, others choose more complex lives where we earn and spend more. There are several points which one should examine and consider. Consider that the market for new cars is not the entire population, but only the fraction of the population that can afford to spend $20,000+ for a new car (at $400+/month payments). You quickly realize that most people making below median income cannot afford to purchase a new car. They buy used cars, from the pool of cars left after depreciation has reduced the price of the car by half (or more). One rule of thumb might be to spend < 10% of your income on transportation. Which might allow for a $400-500/month car payment for half of families. And when you keep a car for 10 years, that can mean two cars, one payment-free. Consider that a new Honda Accord or Toyota Camry is $20-30,000 which is 2/3 to 3/4 the price of a new luxury car. When I purchased my (used) Civic several years ago, the price was nearly 1/2 the price of a new luxury car. I recently purchased a (used) luxury car (7 year old, 70,000 miles) less than 1/3 the new price. The leather interior looks new, more amenities, better performance than my Civic, the car runs well, and with proper maintenance, I expect to drive it for 2-3 years and pass it along to one of my children. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: A used luxury car coming out of lease is usually very affordable. They are usually in good condition, still look relatively new, and are within the same price range as a newer Toyota or Honda. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: It comes down to individual priorities. Some people prefer to spend their money on a luxury car or SUV, rather than on computer gear, a bigger house, having three extra kids, eating in restaurants, or whatever. Some people are quite happy to take out a loan to get more expensive products, and service that loan over several years. There is also "status" attached to some makes (e.g. german marques). That comes with a status premium, which some people are prepared to pay for, or take out debt to get - and some are not. Compare (say) a base model Audi or BMW with a similarly priced non-luxury model from a Japanese competitor. The Japanese model will probably have more features (leather, large rims, safety aids, etc) than the European at the same price point - and it will be necessary to tick several options (and pay extra for them - which can amount to 30-40% extra cost) to get the luxury car with a comparable set of features. For some people, the luxury brand is worth the difference. For some it is not. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Not a direct answer, but... a friend pointed out to me that z proper luxury limo, if loaded with four sales reps going to the same meeting, is cheaper than airfares would be and lets them hold a planning meeting en route. Yeah, most of it is conspicuous consumption. But some of the road yachts have legitimate uses. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. "Because my parents want me to succeed" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? "Why yes, I guess they do." Why? "Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life." Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: In many (most?) cases, luxury cars are leased rather than purchased, so the payments on even an expensive car might not be as high as you'd expect. For simplicity, take a $100,000 car. If you were to buy that in cash or do a standard five-year auto loan, that would be incredibly expensive for all but the wealthiest of people. But a lease is different. When you lease a car, you are financing the car's depreciation over the lease term. So, let's suppose that you're signing up for a three-year lease. The car manufacturer will make an estimate of what that car will be worth when you bring it back in three years (this is called the residual value). If this number is $80,000, that means the lessee is only financing the $20,000 difference between the car's price and its residual value after three years - rather than the full $100,000 MSRP. At the end of the lease, he or she just turns the car back in. Luxury cars are actually especially amenable to leasing because they have excellent brand power - just because of the name on the hood, there are many people who would be happy to pay a lot for a three-year-old Mercedes or BMW. With a mid- or low-range car, the brand is not as powerful and used cars consequentially have a lower residual value (as a percentage of the MSRP) than luxury cars. So, don't look at an $80,000 luxury car and assume that the owner has paying for the entire $80,000. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Approximately 25% of all cars sold last year were leased, which is the highest on record. When you are leasing you don't own the car, instead you are basically renting it for a fixed term, and turning it back to the dealership. It is very cost effective, because the manufacturers have a keen interest in making lots of cars. They are often subsidizing the lease by giving incentives to the dealer. They are gambling on the future value of their cars. They can lose on that gamble. The car business has turned into a financial nightmare for the car companies; they have huge development costs as the cars become more like mobile computing platforms loaded with sensors, and software that is constantly changing. They can't hold a model for 20 years like Mercedes was able to do in the past. Now they have to constantly update their products. The only way to survive as a car maker is to pump out volume, and the leasing programs, which are quietly being underwritten by the manufacturers help them increase the production quantities, which helps lower the fixed development costs. If only the defense contractors could do this! they are stuck spending billions to build 20 planes, and so each one has a staggering price tag. In the future, the car companies that will survive are those that have terrific credit, and low borrowing costs. That means Japanese and Germans will own the car business entirely in the end, and countries with higher borrowing costs (like America and Brasil) will not be competitive. Luckily Ford is so frugal, due to the lingering spirit of its founder, that they can hold out. One thing strongly in favor of leasing is that you have zero maintenance costs typically. The repair risk is significant in luxury cars. When you buy a 10 year old BMW, and when the tranny goes, it costs a fortune. Having a superb car for 30 months for a few hundred bucks a month is something a lot of people enjoy doing. Who can blame them? you spend an hour or 2 a day in your car, and why not live in a nice place? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: I want to add that in my country, Israel, the tax on cars is extraordinarily high. Cars in Israel cost in average twice or more then in the US (for example, a new VW golf with the cheapest configuration costs around 25kUSD). Israel's average salary is lower then US's average salary and the fuel in Israel costs twice. Therefore, having a regular car in Israel costs the same as having a luxury car in the US. Most households have a car. It's all about priorities. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: I must say, I can't completely agree with the tone of most of these answers. I think there may be a good reason to buy a new car, or a luxurious used car. For years I drove old, second hand cars that were really cheap. and unreliable. I can't count the number of times I was left stranded because my car didn't start, or the alternator burned out. I could have bought more recent models, but I was trying to save money. But in 2010 I found a very low mileage 2008 Smart Car for small money. It was a good deal at the time. It was almost new, having very low mileage, and about 60% of the price of a new, less well appointed Smart. I found out that I really like driving cars that won't break down and leave me stranded in sleet or ice storms. When my wife's Mazda hatchback finally rusted to the point that it wouldn't pass the safety inspection and couldn't be repaired, we bought a new 2013 Toyota Rav4. We are really happy with it. It's probably not a luxury car to you, but having reliable heat and air conditioning seems like luxury to us, and we are happy with our decision. I get the Smart serviced at the Mercedes shop. They have very nice coffee and pastries, and very fast free wifi. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Who can truly afford luxury cars? ### Answer: Bravo to A.O's analysis, even with it's resentful tone.... I did not have any help from my parents and still can't afford a luxury car. I have two college degrees, raised three children, and have always worked at least a 40 hour work week. The only reason I can give is not wanting it badly enough... It all boils down to what each of us wants out of life and our perspective. If your perspective is to compete with others in appearances, you will end up empty. However, if you want a quality, enriched life, there is nothing wrong with what you drive. It all boils down to how you feel about what you drive.... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Paying myself a dividend from ltd company ### Answer: In a simple case as the sole UK resident director/shareholder of a company, with that company as your only income, you are usually best paying yourself a salary of the maximum tax free amount allowed under your tax code (~£11k for most people at present). On this you will have to pay some employer and employee National Insurance (NI) contributions (totalling around £1000). Your salary/employer NI counts as an expense, so that is taken off the company profits. You then pay corporation tax on the remainder (20%). The first £5k you take as dividends is tax free, the remainder at a lower tax rate than the equivalent combined income tax/NI (starting at 7.5% instead of 20% tax plus employee plus employer NI), giving a significant saving compared to salaried income even after corporation tax. To declare and pay the tax, you would need to complete a self-assessment tax return. Your company will also need to file a return. The Contractor UK website, although aimed at IT contractors, has some very useful information on operating Ltd companies. That said, finances are rarely that simple so I would concur with the recommendation you engage an accountant, which is a tax-deductible expense. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Paying myself a dividend from ltd company ### Answer: manage the company properly. If you aren't much aware about company rules and regulation or tax matters, get an accountant so that you don't mess up later. better off paying my self a dividend of 100% profit or as an employee? That depends on how much salary you intend to pay yourself, your dividend or how much business expenses you will incur while running the business. Generally speaking you are better off paying your self a minimum salary and pay the rest as dividends. But check out the dividend tax and the income tax you might need to pay and compare which situation you are better off. If you have a partner, using the dividend way will reduce your NI outgoes. ethical and legal? Ethically the dividend way might burn your conscience but it is perfectly legal way of doing things. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Paying myself a dividend from ltd company ### Answer: Adding to webdevduck's answer: Before you calculate your profits, you can pay money tax-free into a pension fund for the company director (that is you). Then if you pay yourself dividends, if you made lots of profit you don't have to pay it all as dividends. You can take some where the taxes are low, and then pay more money in later years. What you must NOT do is just take the money. The company may be yours, but the money isn't. It has to be paid as salary or dividend. (You can give the company director a loan, but that loan has to be repaid. Especially if a limited company goes bankrupt, the creditors would insist that loans from the company are repaid). After a bit more checking, here's the optimal approach, perfectly legal, expected and ethical: You pay yourself a salary of £676 per month. That's the point where you get all the advantages of national insurance without having to pay; above that you would have to pay 13.8% employers NI contributions and 12% employee's NI contributions, so for £100 salary the company has to pay £113.80 and you receive £88.00. Below £676 you pay nothing. You deduct the salary from your revenue, then you deduct all the deductible business costs (be wise in what you try to deduct), then you pay whatever you want into a pension fund. Well, up to I think £25,000 per year. The rest is profit. The company pays 19% corporation tax on profits. Then you pay yourself dividends. Any dividends until your income is £11,500 per year are tax free. Then the next £5,000 per year are tax free. Then any dividends until income + dividends = £45,000 per year is taxed at 7.5%. It's illegal to pay so much in dividends that the company can't pay its bills. Above £45,000 you decide if you want your money now and pay more tax, or wait and get it tax free. Every pound of dividend above £45,000 a year you pay 32.5% tax, but there is nobody forcing you to take the money. You can wait until business is bad, or you want a loooong holiday, or you retire. So at that time you will stay below £45,000 per year and pay only 7.5% tax. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Optimal term/number of months for car finance or lease? ### Answer: If you have the money to pay cash for the car. Then 0 months will save you the most money. There are of course several caveats. The money for the car has to be in a relatively liquid form. Selling stocks which would trigger taxes may make the pay cash option non-optimal. Paying cash for the car shouldn't leave you car rich but cash poor. Taking all your savings to pay cash would not be a good idea. Note: paying cash doesn't involve taking a wheelbarrow full of bills to the dealer; You can use a a check. If cash is not an option then the longest time period balanced by the rates available is best. If the bank says x percent for 12-23 months, y percent for 24-47 months, Z percent for 48 to... It may be best to take the 47 month loan, because it keeps the middle rate for a long time. You want to lock in the lowest rate you can, for the longest period they allow. The longer period keeps the required minimum monthly payment as low as possible. The lower rate saves you on interest. Remember you generally can pay the loan off sooner by making extra or larger payments. Leasing. Never lease unless you are writing off the monthly lease payment as a business expense. If the choice is monthly lease payments or depreciation for tax purposes the lease can make the most sense. If business taxes aren't involved then leasing only means that you have a complex deal where you finance the most expensive part of the ownership period, you have to watch the mileage for several years, and you may have to pay a large amount at the end of the period for damages and excess miles. Plus many times you don't end up with the car at the end of the lease. In the United States one way to get a good deal if you have to get a loan: take the rebate from the dealer; and the loan from a bank/credit Union. The interest rate at banking institution is a better range of rates and length. Plus you get the dealer cash. Many times the dealer will only give you the 0% interest rate if you pay in 12 months and skip the rebate; where the interest paid to the bank will be less than the rebate. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Calculating the total capital of a company? ### Answer: I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term "total capital" referring to "total capital stock" or "total capital assets," in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word "payable" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as "Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called "Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Calculating the total capital of a company? ### Answer: Total Capital This is a very old fashioned term that really is mostly only used in the finance industry today, like when everyone was obsessed with "bank capital". Total Capital = Preferred Equity + Common Equity + Liabilities True blue preferred shares are almost only used by financial companies, banks specifically. The more modern ones that convert to common are used by all other companies. Notes Payable This is another old fashioned term that now carries a different meaning in Generally Accepted Account Principles (GAAP). The oldest definition of a note or a promissory note is a promise to pay a fixed amount of money on a specific date. This has been modified to resemble more a bond and evolved into the zero coupon bond, a bond that makes no cash interest payments but makes one final payment that includes principal & interest. A bank note, like a One Dollar bill, is a note that pays something, in this case One Dollar, never (technically, the repayment date is simply not specified in the contract). While it pays One Dollar, it never pays it back, so it has a constant value of One Dollar. The constant nature, inflation notwithstanding, is what makes bank notes the preferred medium of exchange. GAAP has taken its' own definition to mean any debt payable within 12 months, as it is a current (<12 months) liability. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Calculating the total capital of a company? ### Answer: Opening capital = opening assests-opening liabilities ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program? ### Answer: Ignoring taxes, a share repurchase has exactly the same effect on the company and the shareholders' wealth as a cash dividend. In either case, the company is disbursing cash to its shareholders; in the former, in exchange for shares which shareholders happen to be selling on the market at the time; in the latter, equally to all shareholders. For those shareholders who do not happen to be selling their shares, a share repurchase by a company is equivalent to a shareholder's reinvestment of a cash dividend in additional shares of the same company. The only difference is the total number of shares left outstanding. Your shares after a share buyback represent ownership of a greater fraction of the company, since in effect the company is buying out other shareholders on your behalf. Theoretically, a share buyback leaves the price of the stock unchanged, whereas a cash dividend tends to reduce the price of the stock by exactly the amount of the dividend, (notwithstanding underlying earnings.) This is because a share buyback concentrates your ownership in the company, but at the same time, the company as a whole is devalued by the exact amount of cash disbursed to buy back shares. Taxwise, a share buyback generally allows you to treat your share of the company's profits as capital gains---and quite possibly defer taxes on it as long as you own the stock. You usually have to pay taxes on dividends at the time they are paid. However, dividends are sometimes seen as instilling discipline in management, because it's a very public and obvious sign of distress for a company to cut its dividend, whereas a share repurchase plan can often be quietly withdrawn without drawing that much attention. A third alternative to a dividend or a share repurchase is for the company to find profitable projects to reinvest its earnings in, and attempt to grow the company as a whole (in the hopes of even greater earnings in the future) rather than distribute current earnings back to shareholders. (A company may alse use its earnings to pay down or repurchase debt, as well.) As to your second question, the SEC has certain rules that regulate the timing and price of share repurchases on the open market. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program? ### Answer: A board authorizes the repurchase of shares because they feel the stock in undervalued. The hope is that the stocks will rise either directly by their repurchase, or in the near term due to the realization that the company is in better shape then the market thought. Eventually those shares will be resold back into the market thus bring in more cash at a later date. They will set limits on them maximum they will pay, they will also spread the repurchases out over a time period so they don't overwhelm the market. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program? ### Answer: The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value. Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program? ### Answer: the implications are that the company's earnings per share may seem greater, (after the company buys them there will be less shares outstanding), giving wall street the impression that there is more growth potential than there really is. its an accounting gimmick that can work for a few quarters while the company evaluates how else to impress wall street ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the implications of a corporate stock repurchase or share buyback program? ### Answer: A stock buy back reduces the number of stocks available on the open market. Since stocks are literally a share in ownership a buy back of the stock then when the company repurchases it has the effect of increasing the percent of ownership of the company of each stock. Zynga has a Market Cap of ~1810M so a 200M buy back will increase the ownership value of each stock by ~12%. This has had the effect of an immediate stock price bump of around 12% which is to be expected as the value becomes the expected post buyback value. However long term gains will require Zynga to turn around their business. This bump will only be sustainable if they can. If their business continues to decline then its stock price will continue to slide. There are some who would rather see Zynga invest that 200m in getting a new product to market to bring revenues up rather than spending precious capital on a plan to temporarily bump a stock that is headed towards the floor. If on the other hand the revenue is poised to recover and the company has the excess capitol buying back stock low is a great way to get the most back for your shareholders bucks. Can they repurchase at any price and any time? They can write a buy order for any price at any time in the future, though they have some restrictions from the SEC mostly involving disclosures. But it is up to the sellers to choose to sell at that price. If they execute the buy back at a rate comparable to market rate then they are more likely to get takers than if they attempt to buy it back at a significant reduction from market price. So since today(10-25-2012) the it is selling for ~2.30 A buy order for 2.30 is going to get more action than one at 2.00. Investors will often look at the companies buy back offer for a company in decline(like Zynga has been) as the true value of the company. If so then a lowball buyback offer could add downward pressure on the stock price. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How do I determine ownership split on a franchise model? ### Answer: There is no one solution to every project finance problem. Two models might make sense in this situation, however. In this case, you would count all the money that you give to your friend as a loan which he will pay back with interest. The interest rate and loan amounts will have to be agreed on by both of you. One one hand, the interest should be high enough to reward you in a successful outcome for the amount of risk that you take on if things don't work out. On the other, the interest rate needs to be low enough where his earnings after loan repayment justify your friend's effort, in addition to being competitive to ant rate your friend could secure from a bank. The downside to this plan is you don't directly benefit from the franchise's profits. In this model, you will record the cash that each of you invests. Since your friend is also adding "sweat equity" by setting up and operating the franchise, you will need to quantify the work that your friend and you invest into the franchise. Then you can determine how much each of you has invested in terms of dollars and split any franchise profits based on those proportions. The downside of this plan is that it is difficult to estimate how much time each of you invests and how much that time is worth. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How do I determine ownership split on a franchise model? ### Answer: There is no right and wrong answer to this question. What you and your business partner perceive as Fair is the best way to split the ownership of the new venture. First, regarding the two issues you have raised: Capital Contributions: The fact that you are contributing 90% of initial capital does not necessarily translate to 90% of equity. In my opinion, what is fair is that you transform your contributions into a loan for the company. The securitization of your contribution into a loan will make it easier to calculate your fair contribution and also compensate you for your risk by choosing whatever combination of interest income and equity you see suitable. For example, you might decide to split the company in half and consider your contributions a loan with 20%, 50% or 200% annual interest. Salary: It is common that co-founders of start-ups forgo their wages at the start of the company. I do not recommend that this forgone salary be compensated through equity because it is impossible to determine the suitable amount of equity to be paid. I suggest the translation of forgone wages into loans or preferred stocks in similar fashion to capital contribution Also, consider the following in deciding the best way to allocate equity between both of you and your partner Whose idea was it? Talk with you business partner how both of you value the inventor of the concept. In general, execution is more important but talking about how you both feel about it is good. Full-time vs. part-time: A person who works full time at the new venture should have more equity than the partner who is only a part-time helper. Control: It is important to talk about control and decision making of the company. You can separate the control and decision making of important decisions from ownership. You can also check the following article about this topic at http://www.forbes.com/sites/dailymuse/2012/04/05/what-every-founder-needs-to-know-about-equity/#726842f3668a ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Home owners association for houses, pro/cons ### Answer: Some examples where an HOA is a positive thing: 1) Amenities: Maybe it is professionally maintained landscaping at the front of the subdivision, or a playground, or community pool. An HOA provides a convenient way to have things like that and share the costs among all the people who benefit. 2) Legal Advocacy: I live in a neighborhood (rural) without an HOA. My neighbor decided to start an auto-repair shop on his property which was CLEARLY a violation of the covenants. There isn't really a Government body you can report them to that will swoop in and make them stop a neighbor from destroying your property values even if they signed an agreement when they bought it to the contrary. You need to hire a lawyer and sue them and that costs money and time. Also, in many cases if you wait too long they can get an exception grandfathered in because no one raised an issue about it. An HOA exists to watch for this kind of thing and nip it in the bud rather than making homeowners have to hassle with the time/expense. 3) Independence: Assuming no HOA, and assuming you are okay with suing your neighbor over violating a covenant. That makes for a very uncomfortable situation between you and that neighbor. Having a neutral 3rd party take action on your behalf anonymously can greatly help that situation. It's not all about making people ditch their basketball goals, or garden gnomes. They also protect you from other obnoxious stuff like junky mobile homes in high-end neighborhoods, the guy who blocks half the street permanently with his RV/Boat parked on the curb, three foot tall grass that is an eyesore and a fire hazard, a taco stand opening in your neighbors garage, etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Home owners association for houses, pro/cons ### Answer: At its best, a HOA provides the same benefits as a condo association -- shared investment in the shared neighborhood resources/environment. At its worst, a HOA has the same problems as a condo association, potentially creating unreasonable constraints on what you can or can't do with your own property because your decisions might affect the value of someone else's property or demanding shared investment in something you don't consider worthwhile. Basically, if an HOA is active in your neighborhood, (A) make sure you know its history and biases before you buy, and (B) make sure you're active in it, or you may be unpleasantly surprised by its decisions. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Home owners association for houses, pro/cons ### Answer: As I understand it the basic premiss of a HOA is to ease communication between neighbors and help work towards common community goals. As I understand it the reality is that the HOA works to keep the community homogenous so there are no "sore thumb" neighbors. As to why look for one or avoid one. If you would want a uniform image out of your neighbors and don't mind towing the party line, then they are for you. If you don't care about what your neighbors do with their property (within civic ordinance) and would like freedom to do things different from your neighbors (paint your house blue, hang a clothes line, increase the size of your flower beds), then they are to be avoided. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Home owners association for houses, pro/cons ### Answer: I think it depends a lot on your idea of how you should relate to your neighbors. Personally, I think that I should be allowed to do just about whatever I want with my property, and I grant my neighbor the same right. If my neighbor wants to paint his house purple with orange stripes and fill his front lawn with pink flamingos, I think that's his right. If I don't like it, I don't have to look at his house. (I would draw the line at things that I cannot avoid by simply looking the other way, like running jet engines in his back yard at 2 in the morning, as I could not avoid the noise. Or dumping toxic waste on the street, as it will cause health problems. Etc.) Others think it IS their business what their neighbor does with his property and want to be able to control it. They want someone who has the authority to force everyone in the neighborhood to paint their house in colors deemed acceptable, to meet certain requirements for yard work. And that's what Home Owners Associations are for: to require that everyone in the neighborhood maintain their property according to a standard set by the HOA, which should theoretically represent the wishes of the majority. Of course the price you pay for giving you the right to tell your neighbor what kind of fence he is allowed to have is that now your neighbors can tell you what kind of fence you can have. Advocates of HOAs often say that they are necessary to protect property values. Personally I think this is something of a circular argument: I must have the right to prevent my neighbor from doing something that, in my opinion, makes his house ugly, not because I necessarily have no choice but to stare out my window at his house all day and be repulsed by it, but because someday I may want to sell my house to someone who will have no choice but to stare out the window at his house all day and be repulsed by it and so will not want to buy my house. Of course if we all just minded our own business, this wouldn't be an issue. Okay, this was pretty much an anti-HOA post, but I did TRY to state the other side of it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Home owners association for houses, pro/cons ### Answer: I agree with the basic purpose of an HOA. Unlike the poster above Jay, I do believe that people painting their houses purple will definitely affect the value of my house or property. I for one would not want to live next to someone who has a wild purple house, even though it is his right to do so. In saying that I know that there are very few people who would want to buy my house were it situated next to the "purple house". So in the sense of limiting known eyesores I agree with the purpose of HOA's. That being said, I do not agree with the fact that HOA's are not regulated and that its rules are formed by community members who may be very strict on what or what isn't allowed. If it were simple rules like not painting the house disturbing colors (we all know what they are) or not having junk cars or loud music after a certain time (except on holidays or special calendar days like New Years etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I make extra payments to my under water mortgage or increase my savings? ### Answer: I'd pile up as much cash as you can in a savings account - you will need money for the move (even if it's just gas money) and it's going to be hard to predict where house prices are going so you might or might not be underwater when it comes time to sell the house. Or you might be so deep underwater by then that the extra money doesn't make much of a difference anymore anyway. Once you're actually in the process of selling the house, you can figure out if you can (or need to) use the savings to cover the shortfall, closing costs or if you just built up a little wealth during the time you put the money aside. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I make extra payments to my under water mortgage or increase my savings? ### Answer: You say you are underwater by $10k-15k. Does that include the 6% comission that selling will cost you? If you are underwater and have to sell anyway, why would you want to give the bank any extra money? A loss will be taken on the sale. Personally i would want the bank to take as much of that loss as possible, rather than myself. Depending on the locale the mortgage may or may not be non-recourse, ie the loan contract implies that the bank can take the house from you if you default, but if 'non-recourse' the bank has no legal way to demand more money from you. Getting the bank to cooperate on a short sale might be massively painful. If you have $ in your savings, you might have more leverage to nego with the bank on how much money you have to give them in the event the loan is not 'non-recourse'. Note that even if not 'non-recourse', it's not clear it would be worth the banks time and money to pursue any shortfall after a sale or if you just walk away and mail the keys to the bank. If you're not worried about your credit, the most financially beneficial action for you might be to simply stop paying the mortgage at all and bank the whole payments. It will take the bank some time to get you out of the house and you can live cost-free during that time. You may feel a moral obligation to the bank. I would not feel this way. The banks and bankers took a ton of money out of selling mortgages to buyers and then selling securities based on the mortgages to investors. They looted the whole system and pushed prices up greatly in the process, which burned most home buyers and home owners. It's all about business -my advice is to act like a business does and minimize your costs. The bank should have required a big enough downpayment to cover their risk. If they did not, then they are to blame for any loss they incur. This is the most basic rule of finance. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc ### Answer: Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become "self-insured". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc ### Answer: Whole life in most instances is a very bad plan. It's marketed as a life insurance policy wrapped in an investment but it does neither very well. The hidden caveat of whole life is that the investment goes away if you die. Say for example I have a $100,000 whole life insurance policy and over the years I have paid in enough to have a $15,000 cash value on the policy. If I die, my family gets $100,000 and the cash value is lost. With term life you can get a substantially higher amount of coverage for a smaller payment. If you invest the difference you end up not only with better coverage, but a better cash value from the difference if you don't die (which is what we all hope for anyways). As JackiYo said, your insurance should be designed around replacing lost income/value. You should get 10x your annual income in term life insurance. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc ### Answer: Wow, very amused by some of the answers. I will comment on those later. To directly answer your question, here is a link to a brochure that explains the three basic typs and is written in straightforward language. link text That is step one. Step 2 is a question, cheapest when, initially or for long term? Without a doubt term initially is the cheapest. However every 10 years or 20 years it increases in price. As the name term implies it is temporary. Coverage will end at some point, 75, or 80 depending upon plan design chosen. It is possible that if you choose Term you can outlive your coverage and all you have are a bunch of cancelled cheques. Young people with a mortgage, children and other debts should buy a lot of term as the mortgage will be paid off, the kids will no longer be dependent. These needs are temporary. However some needs are permanent. What about leaving a Legacy at Death to a Charity? Insurance is a good solution and can provide a tax deduction too. Term isn't a good fit. Or a business owner wishing to transfer his/her business at death to their children. Taxes will be due and permanent insurance such as Whole Life and Universal Life can be arranged to provide cash to pay tax whenever this happens. Let me ask you who received 10% in the last ten years on their equity portfolio. Almost zero people did. However a Whole Plan would have generated a guaranteed return of 3.0% plus a non-guaranteed return via dividends that the combined internal rate of return on a combined basis would be about 5.6% AFTER TAXES. Life a bond portfolio yield. (Internal rate of return is dependent on age at buying, years of investing. All insurance comany software can show you the internal rate of return.) IRR is essesntially: what is the return after tax that you must get to equal the equity or death benefit from a permanent insurance plan. Someone mentioned by Term and Invest the difference. That is what universal life is, Term and Invest the difference except the difference is growing tax sheltered.Outside investments with comparable risk are taxable! There is no easy answer for what type is right, often a combination is. The key question you should ask is How Much Is Enough? Then consider types based upon your needs and budget. Here is a link where you can calculate how much you need. I hope this helps a bit. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc ### Answer: All life insurance is pretty much the same when it comes to cost. You can run the numbers over certain time period and the actual cost of insurance is about the same. A simplified way to explain life insurance and the differences between them below: The 3 characteristics of life insurance: There are 5 popular types of life insurance and they are: Term Whole Life Universal Life Variable Universal Life Indexed Universal Life But first, one must understand the most basic life insurance which is called Annual Renewable Term: This is a policy that covers 1 year and is renewable every year after. The cost of insurance typically increases each year as the insured ages. So for every year of coverage, your premium increases like in the simplified illustration above. This is the building block of all life insurance, term or permanent. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance. This is an ART that spans over a longer time period than 1 year (say 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 years). All the cost is added together then divided by the number of years of coverage to give a level premium payment for the duration of the policy. The longest coverage offered these days is 30 years. There is no cash value; all premium goes to the cost of insurance. The premium is fixed (level) for the term specified. If the policy comes to an end and the owner wishes to renew it, it will be at higher premium. This can be seen in the simplified illustration above for a 15-year term policy. Because life insurance gets very expensive as you reach old age, life insurance companies came up with a way to make it affordable for the consumer wishing to have coverage for their entire lifespan. They allow you to have interest rate crediting on the cash value account inside the policy. To have cash value in the first place, you must pay premiums that are more than the cost of insurance. The idea is: your cash value grows over time to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy, where the cost of insurance is typically higher. This is illustrated above in an overly simplified way. This is a permanent life insurance policy that is designed to cover the lifespan of the insured. There is cash value that is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company (typically 3-5%). The premium is fixed for the life of the policy. It was designed for insuring the entire lifespan of the insured. This is variation of Whole Life. There is cash value; it is credited on a fixed interest rate specified by the insurance company, but it does fluctuate year to year depending on the economy (typically 3-6%). The premium is flexible; you can increase/decrease the premium. This is basically a universal life policy, but the cash value sits in an account that is invested in the market, normally mutual funds. Your interest that is being credited (to your account with your cash value from investments) is subjected to risk in the market, rise/fall with the market depending on the portfolio of your choosing, hence the word "Variable". You take on the risk instead of the insurance company. It can be a very good product if the owner knows how to manage it (just like any other investment products). This is a hybrid of the UL and the VUL. The interest rate depends on the performance of a market index or a set of market indices. The insurance company states a maximum interest rate (or cap) you can earn up to and a guaranteed minimum floor on your cash value interest that will be credited (typically 0% floor and 12% cap). It is purely a method to credit you interest rate. It takes the market risk out of the equation but still retains some of the growth potential of the market. Term policy is designed for temporary coverage. There is no cash value accumulation. Permanent policies such as whole life, universal life, variable universal life and indexed universal life have a cash value accumulation component that was originally designed to help pay for the cost of insurance in the later stages of the policy when the insured is at an advanced age, so it can cover the entire lifespan of the insured. People do take advantage of that cash value component and its tax advantages for retirement income supplement and maximize the premium contribution. Always remember that life insurance is a life insurance product, and not an investment vehicle. There is a cost of insurance that you are paying for. But if you have life insurance needs, you might as well take advantage of the cash value accumulation, deferred tax growth, and tax-free access that these permanent policies offer. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What kind of life insurance is cheaper? I'm not sure about term vs. whole vs. universal, etc ### Answer: TL;DR: Only term is pure insurance and is the cheapest. The rest are mixtures of insurance and savings/investment. Typically the mixtures are not as efficient as doing it yourself, except that there can be tax advantages as well as the ability to borrow from your policy in some cases. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I have credit cards without having a credit history or credit score? ### Answer: That is an opinion. I don't think so. Here are some differences: If you use credit responsibly and take the time to make sure the reporting agencies are being accurate, a good report can benefit you. So that isn't like a criminal record. What is also important to know is that in the United States, a credit report is about you, not for you. You are the product being sold. This is, in my opinion, and unfortunate situation but it is what it is. You will more than likely benefit for keeping a good report, even if you never use credit. There are many credit scores that can be calculated from your report; the score is just a number used to compare and evaluate you on a common set of criteria. If you think about it, that doesn't make sense. The score is a reflection of how you use credit. Having and using credit is a commitment. Your are committing to the lender that you will repay them as agreed. Your choice is who you decide to make agreements with. I personally find the business practices of my local credit union to be more palatable than the business practices of the national bank I was with. I chose to use credit provided by the credit union rather than by the bank. I am careful about where I take auto loans from, and to what extent I can control it, where I take home loans from. Since it is absolutely a commitment, you are personally responsible for making sure that you like who you are making commitments with. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I have credit cards without having a credit history or credit score? ### Answer: For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: If it is a well known company that wants to give you a refund, I would not worry about giving them your credit card number. However, I would never type my credit card number into an e-mail message. E-mail messages are very insecure, and can be read by many people along its way to the destination. They also can be archived in many places, meaning that your number will continue to be posted out there for someone to grab in the future. If you need to give this company your credit card number, do it over the phone. Having said that, ultimately you are not generally responsible for fraudulent charges if your card number is stolen and misused. I've had so many fraudulent charges, despite my being relatively careful with my number, that I don't really worry much anymore about losing my number. I just check my statement for false charges, and when they happen, the bank cancels the charge and issues me a new number. It has happened to either my wife or I maybe 5 times over the last two years. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: I used to work for a online payment posting company. Anytime a payment is made via Credit Card to a company that does not have PCI DSS(aka the ability/certification to store credit card information) there is a MD5 checksum(of the confirmation code, not the Credit Card information) that get sent to the company from the processor(billing tree, paypal, etc). The company should be able to send this information back to the processor in order to refund the payment. If the company isn't able to do this, to be honest they shouldn't be taking online credit card payments. And by all means do not send your credit card information in an email. As said above, call the company's customer service line and give them the info to credit your account. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was "send us your credit card statement with the charge circled," to which I responded "there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement." Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund. That is ridiculous. Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort. It is not just about money and safety but it is about time. Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info. So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue. And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element... You fill out form on card website. Card company goes back to vendor and says - "Why are you asking for card numbers via email?" Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this. Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again. By going through their archaic "systems" you are enabling their behavior. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: A bona-fide company never needs your credit card details, certainly not your 3-digit-on-back-of-card #, to issue a refund. On an older charge, they might have to work with their merchant provider. But they should be able to do it within the credit card handling system, and in fact are required to. Asking for details via email doesn't pass the "sniff test" either. To get a credit card merchant account, a company needs to go through a security assessment process called PCI-DSS. Security gets drummed into you pretty good. Of course they could be using one of the dumbed-down services like Square, but those services make refunds ridiculously easy. How did you come to be corresponding on this email address? Did they initially contact you? Did you find it on a third party website? Some of those are fraudulent and many others, like Yelp, it's very easy to insert false contact information for a business. Consumer forums, even moreso. You might take another swing at finding a proper contact for the company. Stop asking for a cheque. That also circumvents the credit card system. And obviously a scammer won't send a check... at least not one you'd want! If all else fails: call your bank and tell them you want to do a chargeback on that transaction. This is where the bank intervenes to reverse the charge. It's rather straightforward (especially if the merchant has agreed in principle to a refund) but requires some paperwork or e-paperwork. Don't chargeback lightly. Don't use it casually or out of laziness or unwillingness to speak with the merchant, e.g. to cancel an order. The bank charges the merchant a $20 or larger investigation fee, separate from the refund. Each chargeback is also a "strike"; too many "strikes" and the merchant is barred from taking credit cards. It's serious business. As a merchant, I would never send a cheque to an angry customer. Because if I did, they'd cash the cheque and still do a chargeback, so then I'd be out the money twice, plus the investigation fee to boot. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Company asking for card details to refund over email ### Answer: Definitely push for a check, they may not do anything nefarious with your credit card number however someone else may be able to read the email before it gets to its final destination. It's never safe to give out credit card number in a less than secure interface. Also, if this is a well known company, then the person interacting with you should know better than to ask for your information through email. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What Did Benjamin Graham Mean by Earnings Stability in The Intelligent Investor? ### Answer: Yes - this is exactly what it means. No losses (negative earnings). With today's accounting methods, you might want to determine whether you view earnings including or excluding extraordinary items. For example, a company might take a once-off charge to its earnings when revising the value of a major asset. This would show in the "including" but not in the "excluding" figure. The book actually has a nice discussion in Chapter 12 "Things to Consider About Per-Share Earnings" which considers several additional variables to consider here too. Note that this earnings metric is different from "Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor" which requires 10 years. PS - My edition (4th edition hardback) doesn't have 386 pages so your reference isn't correct for that edition. I found it on page 209 in Chapter 15 "Stock Selection for the Enterprising Investor". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What Did Benjamin Graham Mean by Earnings Stability in The Intelligent Investor? ### Answer: Please note that the following Graham Rating below corresponds to five years: Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 50.00% Benjamin Graham - once known as The Dean of Wall Street - was a scholar and financial analyst who mentored legendary investors such as Warren Buffett, William J. Ruane, Irving Kahn and Walter J. Schloss. Buffett describes Graham's book - The Intelligent Investor - as "by far the best book about investing ever written" (in its preface). Graham's first recommended strategy - for casual investors - was to invest in Index stocks. For more serious investors, Graham recommended three different categories of stocks - Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV - and 17 qualitative and quantitative rules for identifying them. For advanced investors, Graham described various "special situations". The first requires almost no analysis, and is easily accomplished today with a good S&P500 Index fund. The last requires more than the average level of ability and experience. Such stocks are also not amenable to impartial algorithmic analysis, and require a case-specific approach. But Defensive, Enterprising and NCAV stocks can be reliably detected by today's data-mining software, and offer a great avenue for accurate automated analysis and profitable investment. For example, given below are the actual Graham ratings for International Business Machines Corp (IBM), with no adjustments other than those for inflation. Defensive Graham investment requires that all ratings be 100% or more. Enterprising Graham investment requires minimum ratings of - N/A, 75%, 90%, 50%, 5%, N/A and 137%. International Business Machines Corp - Graham Ratings Sales \| Size (100% ⇒ $500 Million): 18,558.60% Current Assets ÷ [2 x Current Liabilities]: 62.40% Net Current Assets ÷ Long Term Debt: 28.00% Earnings Stability (100% ⇒ 10 Years): 100.00% Dividend Record (100% ⇒ 20 Years): 100.00% Earnings Growth (100% ⇒ 30% Growth): 172.99% Graham Number ÷ Previous Close: 35.81% Not all stocks failing Graham's rules are necessarily bad investments. They may fall under "special situations". Graham's rules are also extremely selective. Graham designed and backtested his framework for over 50 years, to deliver the best possible long-term results. Even when stocks don't clear them, Graham's rules give a clear quantifiable measure of a stock's margin of safety. Thank you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How long can I convert 401(k) to Roth 401(k)? ### Answer: Conversions must be done during the calendar year. This would apply to both IRA and 401(k) accounts. For IRAs, deposits may be made until 4/15, and the same holds for Solo 401(k) accounts. For conversions, the IRA permits a recharacterization, basically, a do-over, which reverses the conversion, any or all, in case you have any reason it should not have been done. That has a deadline of 10/15, i.e. 4/15 plus 6 month extension. The 401(k) conversion has no such provision. Simple answer 12/31 of the given year. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How long can I convert 401(k) to Roth 401(k)? ### Answer: the deadline for roth conversions is december 31st. more precisely, roth conversions are considered to have happened in the tax year the distribution was taken. this creates a kind of loop hole for people who do an ira rollover (not a trustee-to-trustee transfer). technically, you can take money out of your traditional ira on december 31st and hold it for 60 days before deciding to roll it over into either another traditional ira or a roth ira. if you decide to put it in another traditional account, it is not a taxable event. but if you decide to put it in a roth account, the "conversion" is considered to have happened in december. unfortunately non-trustee rollovers are tricky. for one, the source trustee will probably take withholding that you will have to make up with non-ira funds. and rollovers are limitted to a certain number per year. also, if you miss the 60-day deadline, you will have to pay an early-withdrawal penalty (with some exceptions). if you really want to push the envelope, you could try to do this with a 60-day-rule extension, but i wouldn't try it. source: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p590a/ch01.html oddly, recharacterizations (basically reverse roth conversions) have a deadline of october 15th of the year after the original roth conversion it is reversing. so, you could do the conversion in december, then you have up to 10 months to change your mind and "undo" the conversion with a "recharacterization". again, this is tricky business. at the very least, you should be aware that the tax calculations for recharacterization are different if you convert the funds into a new empty roth account vs an existing roth account with a previous balance. honestly, if you want to get into the recharacterization business, you can probably save more on taxes by converting in january before 20-month stock market climb rather than simply converting in the year your tax brackets are low. that is the typical recharacterization strategy. source: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Recharacterization-of-Roth-Rollovers-and-Conversions ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Long vs. short term capital gains on real estate ### Answer: No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Dry cleaners lost $160 pants, what should I do? ### Answer: Do you have the claim ticket? I'll assume yes. Do a Google search for "Dry Cleaner Regulations for [state you live in]" and see if there is a regulatory agency because some states have them, although that might just be for environmental concerns. Worth a shot to call one and ask if they handle customer complaints. Otherwise, the goal is to have them either find your pants or compensate you for the loss. I'd try one last time on the phone or in person. If that fails: Send them a nastygram in the mail demanding $160 by x date or you will pursue "further actions". Keep the letter short and sweet. You can use Google to find example demand letters. After they ignore the letter, file in small claims court. It will cost you ~$50 in filing fees which will be included in the judgement if you win. Go to court, explain why you feel they owe you $160. Bring the claim ticket, the matching suit jacket, and proof that replacing it will cost $160. Step 4: win! Or if that sounds like too much work, you can just write a nasty review on Yelp. You won't get your pants back but it'll feel good. I'd avoid the complaining to the BBB because they have no teeth and the dry cleaner is not obligated to respond to a BBB complaint. Standing right outside their door handing out pamphlets might be a bad idea since it's likely private property and they'll make you leave. But you could always do the labor union thing and hold a "shame on the drycleaners for losing my pants!" sign out by the street or entrance to the parking lot. (That seems like a lot of effort, although it'll look great on your Facebook feed!) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Dry cleaners lost $160 pants, what should I do? ### Answer: I really like Rocky's answer, some more info: Keep in mind there is no limit on punitive damages. You could sue for the pants (160) + the filling fee (50) + a reasonable hourly rate to compensate your time (assume 200) + punitive damages of 4590 (assume 5000 limit on small claims court). When facing a suit of 5000, it could be much cheaper to settle for 160. Keep in mind you don't have to take it. Once you file you may only settle for the pants plus filling fee. Once you actually get to court, you may only settle for the pants + filling fee + some time compensation. If you have the claim ticket, you will win. The question becomes how much punitive damages could you also win? Filling fee, easy. The compensation for your time, very likely. Once the owner is served a summons, they will probably go to a lawyer. The lawyer will tell them to settle ASAP. Use that to your advantage. One thing you might be able to settle for is free dry cleaning. They might give you the $160, plus another $160 in free dry cleaning...if you are willing to use them again. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Dry cleaners lost $160 pants, what should I do? ### Answer: Read the claim ticket or receipt for when you made the initial drop-off. Every dry cleaning business that I've used in the USA has had a warning about damages or in case of loss. They always agree to reimburse up to a certain amount, usually $50 or $100 per item. This is standard in California, Arizona, New York and Florida, as best I can recall. You won't get the full amount, and you may or may not get the maximum, but the dry cleaner should give you some kind of cash recompense as a result of losing your clothing while they had it in their possession. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Dry cleaners lost $160 pants, what should I do? ### Answer: You are looking to be made whole, so the requests need to be reasonable. You need to be clear that you want: You aren't going to 'punish' the dry cleaner or anything else. You don't want coupons or free service for future work, you want your pants or cash. If you send a letter, send it certified with a return receipt. You want to be able to show a judge you made efforts outside of the court that you attempted to reconcile the issue. Sending it certified is also a good way to indicate to the dry cleaner that you aren't going to just go away. Be clear, firm and very polite. You cannot blame or criticize the cleaner, simply state "On YY/YY/YYYY date I didn't get my pants back; I want my pants or I want money by XX/XX/XXXX date." If you want to picket, contact local law enforcement and find out the rules before picketing. You can probably picket from a sidewalk, but that doesn't mean the dry cleaner won't approach you and get in your personal space. If you hand out flyers, stick strictly to provable facts lest you be sued for defamation. It is smarter to hand out a fact sheet or speak from a rehearsed script so that you don't say something that would be actionable. Make sure you pick the busiest day of the week for a dry cleaner. (Weekends?) I don't think this is criminal, but you can sue. Like others said, if you have the cleaning ticket (and the ticket doesn't absolve the dry cleaner of responsibility) you will probably get a judgement. Be careful what you ask for, make sure you cover all of your costs (the pants, filing fees, time off of work, and collection efforts.) Itemize all your requested costs and make sure they are reasonable. You only want to be made whole, and that only means $160 or pants (plus fees) Just because you won in small claims doesn't mean you can collect easily. Figure in your cost for collecting when you sue. You might have to hire somebody to collect on your judgement. If you hire somebody they will want a cut, so you might want to figure that out for your small claims. I am guessing this is a local business, so it should be pretty easy to collect. (Unless they go out of business, in which case you will get nothing.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Dry cleaners lost $160 pants, what should I do? ### Answer: Dude, it's your lucky day! You just won the lottery!! Do like this guy and sue them for $67 million :-) Pearson v. Chung, better known as the "pants lawsuit",1 is a civil case filed in 2005 by Roy L. Pearson, Jr., an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia in the United States, following a dispute with a dry cleaning company over a lost pair of trousers. Pearson filed suit against Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung, the owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, D.C., initially demanding $67 million for inconvenience, mental anguish and attorney's fees for representing himself, as a result of their failure, in Pearson's opinion, to live up to a "satisfaction guaranteed" sign that was displayed in the store. The case drew international attention[2][3] when it went to trial in 2007 and has been held up as an example of frivolous litigation and the need for tort reform in the United States. The entire story dragged on for years, with many appeals, and makes fascinating reading. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is the difference between equity and assets? ### Answer: Accounts track value: at any given time, a given account will have a given value. The type of account indicates what the value represents. Roughly: On a balance sheet (a listing of accounts and their values at a given point in time), there is typically only one equity account, representing net worth, I don't know much about GNUCash, though. Income and expenses accounts do not go on the balance sheet, but to find out more, either someone else or the GNUCash manual will have to describe how they work in detail. Equity is more similar to a liability than to assets. The equation Assets = Equity + Liabilities should always hold; you can think of assets as being "what my stuff is worth" and equity and liabilities together as being "who owns it." The part other people own is liability, and the part you own is equity. See balance sheet, accounting equation, and double-entry bookkeeping for more information. (A corporate balance sheet might actually have more than one equity entry. The purpose of the breakdown is to show how much of their net worth came from investors and how much was earned. That's only relevant if you're trying to assess how a company has performed to date; it's not important for a family's finances.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is the difference between equity and assets? ### Answer: Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense). In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner. In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2. In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors. As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures. First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled "The books of the family of Doe", "The books of Mr & Mrs Doe", or "The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons". Ask yourself, who "owns" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm. Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity. So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the "partnership" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called "The books Children 1", and classify the expense in that separate book. I advise using "The family of Doe" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is the difference between equity and assets? ### Answer: Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question "Where is the value of the company coming from?" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as "Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of "Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: "How much is the company worth at this moment?", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called "Equity", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called "Starting Equity", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named "Equity". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: They're not at all the same. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment method that pays off early investors with deposits from later ones. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits on reserve, while lending out the rest. The reserve requirement is how central banks limit the amount of money that can float around in commercial banks. In the latter case, there is no "later investor" somewhere down near the bottom of a money food chain. Every dollar, regardless of whether it was created fresh from one of the federal reserve banks or created via several chained loans, is worth the same. If the dollars depreciate for whatever reason, they do so for everyone. Now, if you want a good example of a Ponzi scheme that is actually legal, look at Social Security. Edit: A "debt-based society" is separate from fractional-reserve banking. If the Fed creates $1,000,000, the total amount of money that can float around is still capped based on whatever the reserve requirement is. (For a 10% reserve requirement, it's something like $10,000,000.) We have unsustainable debt increases because of lack of self-control on the part of our leaders. The fractional-reserve process helps it along, but it's not the culprit. It's an enabler. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: You are forgetting one crucial point regarding the money supply. The US Federal Reserve increases the money supply, meaning some of the money is not really loaned, it just appears out of nowhere. At first glance this seems even worse: over the short term, the Fed changes the money supply to help the economy in whatever way it sees fit. But over the long term, the money supply increases to reflect economic growth. As new technology is introduced, more can be accomplished with the same labor and resources, and thus the money supply needs to be increased. Money is really just a convenient replacement for the barter system, so if there are more things to barter "for" (goods and services) then there should also be more things to barter "with" (money). Also keep in mind inflation. The cost of goods and services goes up over time due to the inflation of currency, and so the money supply must also be increased so that those goods and services do not artificially increase in value, which would be very bad. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: The fundamental underlying difference between a bank and a Ponzi scheme: When a bank lends money and charges interest, people can do things with that borrowed money which are worth it. (Building factories, starting businesses, or just enjoying the comfort and warmth of a single-family home instead of paying rent). This is why fractional-reserve banking is able to work. People may also do things which do not necessarily turn a financial profit (financing large purchases on a credit card) but are worth it in terms of an expenditure. They may also do stupid things (financing useless purchases on a credit card and wasting their money) or otherwise dispose of the money poorly (the new business fails, the home's value plummets, etc). A Ponzi scheme never really bothered to do useful things with the money. Social Security has been mentioned. Part of social security's setup involves the current population of workers paying the current population of retirees; their own retirements will have to be financed by the next generation. This design is not intrinsically a Ponzi scheme: both the population and the economy ought to remain growing for the intermediate future, so there will be at least as much money (and probably much more) for them to pay those bills. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, the idea that it will continue to attract new money to pay out existing claims is a realistic one. The real questions of its sustainability are a matter of specifics: is it collecting enough money to remain functional in the future, or is it outpacing the growth of the economy and the population? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: The Ponzi/Madoff schemes were closed loops, so the only source of the so-called "interest" on the money was the contributions of future investors. The economy is more like a living thing, and the availability of capital allows people to develop new ways to do things in a more productive way. Agriculture is a great example -- for most of human history the overwhelming majority of human labor was dedicated to producing food. Now that proportion is dramatically smaller -- the descendants of farmers 100 years ago are doctors and computer programmers... professions that could not exist. Fractional reserve banking makes the economy more efficient by putting capital that would otherwise be hoarded in circulation. Money is a medium of exchange, so the more it turns over, the better it is. Genoa and Britain pioneered this concept centuries ago, and were able to defeat larger rivals in large part because of the economic advantages that the practice brought to bear. That's not to say that banking doesn't come with its warts as well. I'd suggest reading "A Free Nation Deep in Debt", which does a good job of explaining how we got to where we are today. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: No, fractional reserve banking isn't a scam. A simple exercise: replace dollars with time. You're trading some time now for time in the future, plus a bit of extra time. This is only a problem if you promise your entire life away, which we've helpfully outlawed. Once you realize that wealth is the result of human labor, and that money is simply a unit of account for it, it becomes far easier to see how simplistic models don't match reality. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: It is possible to pay down debt (including interest) without issuing new debt money to pay for it. I think this is the heart of your question. Let me present a highly contrived example in which society has four people and one bank. Here is a bank with $100 in initial deposits. Total money supply in this society is $100. (We assume there is no currency circulating, since you're interested in debt money.) This bank lends out $90 to Bob at 1 year maturity and 10% APR. Bob spends this $90 with Charlie to buy raw materials. Charlie deposits $90 in the bank. The money supply just grew from $100 to $190. Bob does something with the raw materials and adds some kind of value, eventually selling the finished goods for $110. In our little silly economy, the only people who have money are Adam and Charlie, so we must assume that between the two of them they buy $110 worth of goods from Bob. Let's say Adam buys $60 and Charlie buys $50 -- the actual amounts don't matter. Bob deposits this money at the bank. Still $190 of money supply. At the end of 1 year, Bob instructs the bank to transfer payment from his deposit account to his loan account. The bank wipes clean his debt and the money remaining in Bob's account represents his return. Who is this David guy? He's the owner of the bank. He grosses $9 in interest from the loan to Bob, and he pays $5 to Adam as interest on Adam's deposit. The remaining $4 is the profit to the bank's owner. Money supply decreased from $190 to $100 after Bob pays off his loan. I realized after writing this, the one thing I left out is, "where does Adam get $100 to start with?" Presumably Adam starts off with some kind of currency, either fiat money or commodity money. (IOW, debt money can't be created out of nothing, it has to be expanded on top of some kind of currency.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is the fractional-reserve banking not a Ponzi scheme? ### Answer: Your question contains two different concepts: fractional reserve banking and debt-based money. When thinking of these two things I think it is important to analyze these items separately before trying to understand how the whole system works. Fractional Reserve Banking As others have pointed out fractional reserve banking is not a ponzi scheme. It can be fraudulent, however. If a bank tells all its depositors that they can withdrawal their money at any time (i.e. on demand) and the bank then proceeds to loan out some portion of the depositors' money then the bank has committed fraud since there is no way they could honor the depositors' requests for their money if many of them came for their money at one time. This is true regardless of what type of money is deposited - dollars, gold, etc.. This is how most modern banks operate. Debt-based money Historically, the Fed would introduce new money by buying US Treasuries. This means Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are backed by US Treasuries. I agree that this seems strange. Does this mean if I take my FRNs to the Fed I could redeem them for US Treasuries? But US Treasuries are promises to pay FRNs in the future. This makes my head hurt. Reminds me of the definition for recursion: see recursion. Here is an experiment. What if we wanted to recreate FRNs today and none existed? The US government would offer a note to pay 100 FRNs in one year and pay 5% interest on the note. The Fed would print up its first 100 FRNs to buy the note from the US government. The US government would spend the FRNs. The first 100 FRNs have now entered into circulation. At the end of the note's term the Fed should have 105 FRNs since the government agreed to pay 5% interest on the note. But how is the US government going to pay the interest and principal on the note when only 100 FRNs exist? I think this is the central point to your question. I can come up with only two answers: 1) the Fed must purchase some assets that are not debt based 2) the US government must continue to issue debt that is purchased by newly printed FRNs in order to pay back older debt and interest. This is a ponzi scheme. The record debt levels seem to indicate the ponzi scheme option was chosen. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: On paper I have 1 share in my company. How can I sell a smaller percentage of my company to another party? ### Answer: Simple: Do a stock split. Each 1 Ordinary share now = 100 Ordinary shares (or 100,000 or whatever you choose). Then sell 20 (or 20,000) of them to your third party. (Stock splits are fairly routine occurrence. Apple for example has done several, most recently in 2014 when 1 share = 7 shares). Alternatively you could go the route of creating a new share class with different rights, preferences etc. But this is more complicated. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: On paper I have 1 share in my company. How can I sell a smaller percentage of my company to another party? ### Answer: There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: On paper I have 1 share in my company. How can I sell a smaller percentage of my company to another party? ### Answer: Do a share split. Your initial 1 share each becomes 10 (or 100) shares each, then you can sell/gift/etc shares as needed. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: On paper I have 1 share in my company. How can I sell a smaller percentage of my company to another party? ### Answer: You actually have a few options. First, you can do a share split and then sell an equal number of shares from both you and your wife to maintain parity. Second, you can have the company issue additional shares/convert shares and then have the company sell the appropriate percentage to the third party while the rest is distributed to you and your wife. Third, you can have the company issue a separate class of stock. For example there are companies that have voting stock and non-voting stock. Depending on your goal, you could just issue non-voting stock and sell that. Best bet is to contact a lawyer who specializes in this type of work and have them recommend a course of action. One caveat that has not been mentioned is that what/how you do this will also depend on the type of corporation that you have created. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: The statistic you cited comes from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances, a survey that they do every three years, most recently in 2013. This was reported in the September 2014 issue of the Federal Reserve Bulletin. They list the percentage of Americans with any type of debt as 74.5 in 2013, down slightly from 74.9 in 2010. The Bulletin also has a table with a breakdown of the types of debt that people have, and primary residence mortgages are at the top of the list. So the answer is yes, the 75% statistic includes Americans with home mortgages.* The bigger question is, are you really "in debt" if you have a home mortgage? The answer to that is also yes. When you take out a mortgage, you really do own the house. You decide who lives there, you decide what changes you are going to make to it, and you are responsible for the upkeep. But the mortgage debt you have is secured by the house. This means that if you refuse to pay, the bank is allowed to take possession of the house. They don't even get the "whole" house, though; they will sell it to recoup their losses, and give you back whatever equity you had in the house after the loan is satisfied. Is it good debt? Many people think that if you are borrowing money to purchase an appreciating asset, the debt is acceptable. With this definition, a car loan is bad, credit card debt is very bad, and a home mortgage might be okay. Even Dave Ramsey, radio host and champion of the debt-free lifestyle, is not opposed to home mortgages. Home mortgages allow people to purchase a home that they would otherwise be unable to afford. * Interestingly, according to the bulletin appendix, credit card balances were only included as debt for the survey purposes if there was a balance after the most recent bill was paid, not including purchases made after the bill. So people that do not carry a balance on their credit card were not considered "in debt" in this statistic. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: I think you're thinking that "in debt" doesn't just mean "owes a debt" but somehow means "owes more debt in total than the assets". That condition, owing money without offsetting assets, is "having a negative net worth". If you have a mortgage then you have a debt and you are in debt. You may have a positive net worth, if you have equity in the house and your car and such like, and have cash in the bank. You may have a negative net worth if you owe more than you own. But either way you are technically in debt. Knowing that, it's not surprising that 75% of Americans are in debt. It's surprising that 25% are not. They have no credit card, no car loan, no mortgage, no line of credit, no student loans. Is it because they've paid all that off? Or because they are deadly poor and own nothing and can't be lent anything? You can't just say it's bad to have debt. It's bad to have too much debt, to have a negative net worth, to be in the habit of borrowing to finance a lifestyle you can't actually afford, and so on. But it's perfectly normal to have a debt or two. That's how our system mostly works. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: Yes. A mortgage is a kind of debt. Someone lends you money to buy your house, and you owe them the money, so you have debt. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: Yes, a mortgage is debt. It's unique in that you have a house which should be worth far more than the mortgage. After the mortgage crisis, many found their homes under water i.e. worth less than the mortgage. The word debt is a simple noun for money owed, it carries no judgement or negative connotation except when it's used to buy short lived items with money one doesn't have. Aside from my mortgage, I get a monthly credit card bill which I pay in full. That's debt too, only it carried no interest and rewards me with 2% cash back. Many people would avoid this as it's still debt. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: If you owe money to someone else then you are in debt, at least in the common meaning of the word. What you happen to own, or what you spent that money on doesn't alter that fact. Are people considered in debt if their only 'debt' is the mortgage/loan for their house, or are these people excluded from the statistic? The only way to answer that for sure is to look at who compiled the statistic and exactly what methodology they used. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: Mortgage is a (secured) debt, a combination of a promissory note, and a security interest providing the mortage holder a secured interest in the property. Yes, you are "in debt". But that depends upon whether you define the term "in debt" as a debt appearing on the balance sheet, or the net of assets - liabilities is less than zero, whether you have a "debt" expense on the income statement (budget), or whether the net of income - expenses is less than zero. One person might look at their budget, find the (monthly) mortgage payment listed, and judge that they have a debt payment, and thus are "in debt". Or they might look at their expenses, find they exceed their income, and judge that they are "in debt". Another person might look at their balance sheet, compare assets to liabilities, and only say they were "in debt" when their liabilities exceeded their assets. Some people view mortgage debt as "good debt", as they view certain debts as "good" and others as "bad". Trust me, having a high mortgage payment (higher 30% of your net income) is hard, and over 40% is bad. Consider you balance sheet and your income statement. On your balance sheet, the house appears on the "asset" side with an (estimated) value, while the "mortgage" (really, the promissory note part of the mortgage) appears on the "liability" side. On your income statement, your house does not appear on the income side, but the mortgage (promissory note) payment appears on the expense side. So, you clearly have both a "liability" with a clearly-defined value and an "expense" with a clearly-defined payment. But do you have an "asset"? According to an accountant, you have an "asset" and a "liability". But you do not have a business asset that is producing revenue (income), nor do you have a business asset that can be amortized and expensed to reduce taxable income. When we think about an asset, does the word have the connotation of some thing with value, something that produces income? Well, by that measure, a house only provides income when we rent it out, and only has value when we consider selling it. As millions of families discovered during the housing (price) collapse, when the market price of your "asset" falls substantially, your personal financial status can fall negative and you can be "broke". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Am I considered in debt if I pay a mortgage? ### Answer: The expression "in debt" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts. A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc). So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means "in debt" is not necessarily a statement about net worth. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: This is a very trivial scam. Flow is like this: Send money to Mr. X (you, in this case). Call Mr. X and ask for the money back, because mistake. Usually they ask for a wire transfer/cash/gift cards/prepaid cards or something else irreversible/untraceable. Mr. X initiates transfer back to Scammer. Accept the transfer from Mr. X Dispute the original transfer or otherwise cancel it through the netbank Mr. X cannot dispute his transfer to the Scammer, since it was genuinely and intentionally initiated by Mr. X. End up with twice the money, at the expense of Mr. X In other countries this is usually done with forged checks, but transfers can work just as well. As long as the transfer can be retroactively canceled or reversed - the scam works. You mentioned money laundering - this is definitely a possibility as well. They transfer dirty money to you from unidentified sources, and you send a "gift" to them with a clear paper trail. When the audit comes - the only proof is that you actually sent them the gift, and no-one will believe your story. You'll have to explain why the Mr. Z who's now in jail sent you a $1K of his drug money. However, in this case I think it is more likely a scam, and the scammer didn't really know what he was doing... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: This is almost certainly a scam or a mistake. This is not good, spendable money: it is not yours to keep. Very simple to handle. Tell the bank, in writing that you were not expecting to receive this money and are a bit surprised to receive it. Preferably in a way that creates a paper trail. And then stop talking. Why? Because you honestly don't know. This puts you at arm's length to the money: disavowing it, but not refusing it. Wildest dreams: nobody wants it back ever. As for the person bugging you for the cash, tell them nothing except work with their own bank. Then ignore them completely. He probably hacked someone else, diverted their money into your account, and he's conning you into transferring it to a third location: him. Leaving you holding the bag when the reversals hit months later. He doesnt want you reversing; that would return the money to the rightful owner! He works this scam on dozens of people, and he wins if some cooperate. Now here's the hard part. Wait. This is not drama or gossip, you do not need to keep people updated. You are not a bank fraud officer who deals with the latest scams everyday, you don't know what the heck you are doing in this area of practice. (In fact, playing amateur sleuth will make you suspicious). There is nothing for you to do. That urge to "do something" is how scammers work on you. And these things take time. Not everyone banks in real time on smartphone apps. Of course scammers target those who'd be slow to notice; this game is all about velocity. Eventually (months), one of two things is likely to happen. The transfer is found to be fraudulent and the bank reverses it, and they slap you with penalties and/or the cops come knockin'. You refer them to the letter you sent, explaining your surprise at receiving it. That letter is your "get out of jail free" card. The other person works with their bank and claws back the money. One day it just disappears. (not that this is your problem, but they'd file a dispute with their bank, their bank talks to your bank, your bank finds your letter, oh, ok.) If a year goes by and neither of these things happens, you're probably in the clear. Don't get greedy and try to manipulate circumstances so you are more likely to keep the money. Scammers prey on this too. I think the above is your best shot. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: Possible ways they could make money (or think they could): I would go back through your transaction history and see if it's disappeared. Even with an assumed-rubbish interface finding a reversal of the transaction should be easy as you know the amount. I wouldn't spend it for a very long time if it is still there, just in case my last bullet applies. Given what they knew about you (phone number and account details) I'd be wary enough to keep an eye on all my accounts, possibly wary enough to consider credit monitoring in case they try to open other accounts with your details. Although of course plenty of people have legitimate reasons to have this information - if you've written a cheque the account details will be on it, and you might well be in the phone book or otherwise searchable. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: It could be money laundering. so: Answer 1: They didn't get your data wrong. They indeed sent you $1,000. How they obtained your banking data is another issue we won't address here. Answer 2: Your PII() was most likely compromised. From what you report, it included at least your banking info and your phone number. Probably more, but goes out of the scope of this answer. Answer 3: Money Laundering is done in small transactions, to avoid having the financial institution filing a Currency Transaction Report(*). So they send $1,000 to several marks. Possibly at the stage of layering, to smudge out the paper trail associated to the money. Money laudering is a risky endeavour, and the criminals don't expect to have all the money they enter into the system come out clean on the other side. You really don't want to be associated with that cash, so the best is to report to your bank that you don't recognize that transaction and suspect illegal activity. In writing. Your financial institution knows how to proceed from there. Answer 4: Yes, and one of the worst financial scams. From drug trafficking, to human slavery and terrorism, that money could be supporting any of these activities. I urge the reader to access the US Treasury's "National Money Laudering Risk Assessment" report for more information. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: There are three possibilities. This is a scam, as others have pointed out, it works by you sending money, then them stopping the original transfer, meaning you sent them your money and not theirs. They make money cause a stop payment only costs $50 (or around there) but you sent $1,000. So they profit $950. You lose $1,000 and maybe some processing fees. This is money hiding, or money laundering. They send you $1,000 in drug money, you send them $1,000 in "clean" money. You don't lose any money. But they gain a clear paper trail. With large sums of money (in the U.S. anything over $5k) you have to prove a paper trail. They just did. You gifted it to them. On your end, it looks like you just profited from illegal activity, which in the worst case ends in confiscation of ALL your assets and jail time. It might not come to that, but it could. This was an honest mistake, by an idiot. It is possible to wire a complete stranger money. If you make a mistake on the wire transfer forms, and the account number exists, it will go through. Now what makes the sender an idiot is not the mistake. We all do that. It's the fact that banks have a built in system for handling these mistakes. Simply put, you can make a stop payment. It's around $50 (varies by bank and sometimes amount transferred), it's easy to do, and almost automatic. If you tell a bank rep that you made a mistake they will likely have you fill out a paper, and in many cases will "just take care of it". If "the idiot" didn't want to tell the bank of the mistake, or didn't ask for help, or didn't want to pay the fee. Then maybe they would contact the receiving party. But that's pretty dumb. Resolution The resolution in all cases is the same. Visit your local branch, or send in writing, an explanation: "I found $1,000 in my bank account that I didn't put there, and got this email (see attached print out). Please advise." They will "freeze" the $1,000 (or maybe the account but I have never seen that) while they investigate. You won't be able to spend it, they might even remove it pending the investigation. They will contact the bank that issued the transfer and attempt to sort things out. You shouldn't be charged anything. You also won't get to keep the money. Eventually the bank will send you a letter stating what happened with the investigation. And the money will vanish from your account. Specific questions I wanted to state the information above even though it doesn't address your concerns directly because it is important. To address your specific questions: Question 1) Surely bank account numbers have a checksum, which make it relatively difficult for a typo to result in a payment going to the wrong person? Nope, that's up to each bank. Usually the account numbers are not sequential, but there is no "checksum" either. Just like credit cards, there are rules, but once you know those rules you can generate fake ones all day long. In some cases, account numbers 5487-8954-7854 and 5487-8945-7854 are both valid. It happens. Question 2) What are likely sources of them being able to find my phone number to call me? Phone numbers are not private. Not even close. Phone books, Google, Websites, etc etc. if you think your phone number is in any way a secret then your totally misinformed. Account numbers are not a secret either. Especially bank account numbers. You could totally just call a bank, and say "What is the name on account 12345?" and they would tell you. Checks have your name and account number on them, as do MANY documents from a bank. So anything from asking the bank, to finding a copy of a check or document in the trash are valid ways to make the link. Question 3) How were they expecting to benefit? See options 1 and 2 above. If is is really option 3, then your bank should have directed the money back. But if the person was so messed up as you say, the account may have been closed and "written off". When that happens a lot of weird stuff can happen. Essentially the bank is "taking a loss" of money and doesn't want the money back even if the account was closed with a negative balance. Usually though contract with debt collectors, they may have already been "paid" for that debt, and are not allowed to take the money back. These things happen, but it seems like a pretty odd set of things that need to line up for #3 to be valid. About your Length of time Usually these things resolve in less then 90 days. Usually far less. At the 90 day mark, it gets really hard to reverse a transaction. It's possible that it was a scam and so many people fell for it that the scammers just let you keep the money instead of "highlighting" their scam. The fact that your using a "net bank" means that your can't go in person, but you should get details in writing. State the transaction number (it should be in your account records) and ask them for a "letter of resolution" or some form of official document stating the outcome of their investigation. I suspect that no one every really investigated the issue and the rep you spoke to never did anything then ask you to ask them to fill out a stop payment. You need a record of trying to sort this out. You don't want to up for some legal battle 10 years from now because someone found out that the money was part of a pool that was used to fund some terrorist group or some such. So get a paper trail, then go with what the bank says. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: This was most likely a scam, although I do know of cases where a transfer intended for one company ended up in the bank account of another company. I am not entirely sure what happened afterwards, but I think the receiving company was asked to return the transfer back to the originating account. Still, even if this was the case, they wouldn't have just abandoned $1k for a simple administration fee (if there was even any). It doesn't sound logical. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: I received $1000 and was asked to send it back. How was this scam meant to work? ### Answer: OK, there is no way in hell that a stranger should have your contact details. there is no way in hell that a stranger should be able to determine your name from that account number unless you are previously known to them. Have they explained to your satisfaction how any previous relationship was established? It was correct to direct them back to their own bank or their branch manager if they bank with the CBA. There are procedures in place for this, and you are in the clear if the bank handles it. Even there is a previous relationship, and you are in their address book, think long and hard about their "bona fides". It may not have been a scam they may have had fat fingers and be genuinely out of pocket now. It is SOP that if you refuse to refund the money the banks will become less helpful. (EDIT - you have consented to retrun the money). EDIT - IF you had not consented... Disclosure: I am a former CBA employee and a 20 year veteran of NetBank, and these are my own opinions. ###end

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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