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: Health insurance lapsed due to employer fraud. How to get medications while in transition? ### Answer: Check with the manufacturer of the name brand medication. Most of them have programs to help people who need their medication but can not afford it. They may be able to send you coupons for discounted or free medication. You can go to a free clinic. If your income is low enough the free clinic will provide medicine until you can get back on insurance. You can do what alot of people who work hard and do not have insurance do and pay for it outof pocket. You can talk to your doctor and see if there is an alternative to the expensive medicine that your insurance used to pay for. It may not be as effective or may have other side affects but many people are forced to go with these alternatives. You situation is certianly unfortunate but also not terribly uncommon. You probably also have recourse against the former employer but if they commited fraud, and faked your insurance there probably is not alot of money to recoup. If it was a person who commited fraud then you may be able to get a judgement against them that would survive bankruptcy and the business but it will probably be at least 5 years before you can recoup anything possibly much longer and your attorney will probably not take it on contingency. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Health insurance lapsed due to employer fraud. How to get medications while in transition? ### Answer: Your doctor may also have free samples available. You could call, explain your situtation and ask to see if they have any free samples. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: In what circumstances will a bank waive the annual credit card fee? ### Answer: See if the bank has other credit cards they offer. Many banks have multiple ones: some cards have great benefits, others do not; some cards have high rates, some do not; some cards are secured, some do not. If they have a card that you like ask them to switch you to the card you want. They should be able to do so very easily. Your card number will change, but they will treat it is a replacement so that your credit score will not take a hit during the switch. It may be possible to get them to waive the annual fee, but most won't because each card type they offer are separate products so they only allow you to pick one of their options. If they don't have a card to your liking apply for a card from anther bank that has the benefits and annual fees (zero) that you are looking for. It may be that the new card will start with a lower limit, but it will increase over time, especially as you shift more of your business to the new card. When you cancel the old card before the next year rolls around you will take a small short hit to your credit score, but that is ok. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to calculate cash loss over time? ### Answer: If inflation is at 2% per annum, in a year you would need £102 to buy equivalent goods to what you could buy today. So if you keep your money in a drawer the buying power of your £100 in a year will be only 100/102 = 98.039% of what it is currently. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to calculate cash loss over time? ### Answer: While it is a true loss, as you've determined, is not a cash cost, per se. A cash cost would be a decrease in cash holdings. Inflation does not take your cash balance; it devalues it, so it is an accrued loss. Central banks are extremely lazy in determining inflation, so the highest resolution available at a public level is monthly. In the United States, there is a small project that tries to calculate daily inflation rates and seems to do a decent job, but unless if you are a customer of a particular financial institution, you will suffer a lag. The small project refuses to make the data public in real time or even allow outside analysis. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics is responsible for consumer inflation statistics. The methodology is not readily available, but considering the name, it is most likely an inferior Laspeyres index instead of the optimal Fisher index as it is in the US. To calculate the accrued cost due to inflation, simply multiply the amount of money held by the price index value at the beginning of the time held and divide by the price index value at the end of the time held. For example, to determine the amount of value lost since March 2014, multiply the money held by the price index value for March 2014 and divide by June 2014. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to calculate cash loss over time? ### Answer: It helps to put the numbers in terms of an asset. Say a bottle of wine costs 10 dollars, but the price rises to 20 dollars a year later. The price has risen 100%, and your dollars have lost value. Whereas your ten used to be worth 100% of the price of bottle of wine, they now are worth 50% of the risen price of a bottle of wine so they've lost around 50% of their value. Divide the old price by the new inflated price to measure proportionally how much the old price is of the new price. 10 divided by 20 is 1/2 or .50 or 50%. You can then subtract the old price from the new in proportional terms to find how much value you've lost. 1 minus 1/2 or 1.00 minus .50 or 100% minus 50%. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to calculate cash loss over time? ### Answer: There are two things you need to keep in mind when you look at Inflation as an entity. Inflation is necessary to keep in check the value of goods. As per Moore's Law for example, a mobile phone that you buy for £100 today will be available for £50 in two years. With increased purchasing power, one needs to maintain balance between the purchasing power and its value. If you think about the 'loss' at a rate of 2% you would have £96.04 (in terms of today's value) in two years. But if you looked at the same cell phone as leverage for your business where it allowed you to do work and earn £1000 in two years - the investment would clearly offset the cost of inflation. Inflation is incentive for people to spend their money. If you for example spent all of your £100 today, it is £100 income for someone else. He has further incentive to spend it creating a chain of transactions. In theory while this is a true mathematical loss, the increasing purchasing power helps you leverage your financial asset to get a return on your investment. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to realize capital gains before going from non-resident alien to resident alien in USA ### Answer: Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to realize capital gains before going from non-resident alien to resident alien in USA ### Answer: This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats: ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: No-line-of-credit debit card? ### Answer: This arrangement might be a bit of a pain, but what about Visa gift card(s)? The transfer of money just doesn't happen if the money isn't already on the card. See here. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: No-line-of-credit debit card? ### Answer: We have a pre-paid mastercard. This will only allow the spending up to the amount already paid into the card account. Visa Electron is a bank account linked debit card that will not allow the account to go overdrawn but this card type is getting quite rare. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: No-line-of-credit debit card? ### Answer: I think what you are looking for is a secured credit card. They are mostly used by people who have ruined their credit and want to rebuild it, but it might also serve your purpose. Essentially you deposit some money in an account and the credit card can be used up to the amount left in the account. Each month when you pay the bill, it resets the balance that you can charge. Also, many credit card providers also offer "disposable" or "one use" credit card numbers for the express purpose of using it online. It still gets charged against your regular account, but you get a separate number that can only be used for up to X dollars of transactions. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: No-line-of-credit debit card? ### Answer: Having worked at a financial institution, this is a somewhat simple, two-part solution. 1) The lendor/vendor/financial institution simply turns off the overdraft protection in all its forms. If no funds are available at a pin-presented transaction, the payment is simply declined. No fee, no overdraft, no mess. 2) This sticking point for a recurring transaction, is that merchants such as Netflix, Gold's Gym etc, CHOOSE to allow payments like this, BECAUSE they are assured they are going to get paid by the financial institution. It prevents them from having issues. Only a gift card will not cost you more money than you put in, BUT I know of several institutions, that too many non-payment periods can cause them to cease doing business with you in the future. TL:DR/IMO If you don't want to pay more than you have, gift cards are the way to go. You can re-charge them whenever you choose, and should you run into a problem, simply buy a new card and start over. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: ETF's for early retirement strategy ### Answer: I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: ETF's for early retirement strategy ### Answer: This is the chart going back to the first full year of this fund. To answer your question - yes, a low cost ETF or Mutual fund is fine. Why not go right to an S&P index? VOO has a .05% expense. Why attracted you to a choice that lagged the S&P by $18,000 over this 21 year period? (And yes, past performance, yada, yada, but that warning is appropriate for the opposite example. When you show a fund that beat the S&P short term, say 5 years, its run may be over. But this fund lagged the S&P by a significant margin over 2 decades, what makes you think this will change? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: ETF's for early retirement strategy ### Answer: If your intention is to purchase ETFs on a regular basis (like $x per month), then ETFs may not make sense. You may have to pay a fixed transaction cost like you were buying a stock for each purchase. In a similar no load mutual fund, there are more likely to be no transaction costs (depending on how it is bought). The above paragraph is not very definitive, and is really dependent upon how you would purchase either ETFs or Mutual funds. For example if you have a Fidelity brokerage account, they may let you buy certain ETFs commission free. Okay then either ETFs make great sense. It would not make sense to buy ones that they charge $35 per transaction if you have regular transactions that are smallish. The last two questions seem to be asking if you should buy MF or buy stocks directly. For most people the later is a losing proposition. They do not have the time or ability to buy stocks directly, effectively. Even if they did they may not have the capital to make enough of a difference when one considers all the cost involved. However, if that kind of thing interests you, perhaps you should dabble. Start out small and look at the higher costs of doing so as part of the "cost of doing business". ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do classes have to pay sales tax on materials used? ### Answer: In most jurisdictions, both the goods (raw materials) and the service (class) are being "sold" to the customer, who is the end user and thus the sale is subject to sales tax. So, when your friend charges for the class, that $100 is subject to all applicable sales taxes for the jurisdiction and all parent jurisdictions (usually city, county and state). The teacher should not have to pay sales tax when they buy the flowers from the wholesaler; most jurisdictions charge sales tax on end-user purchases only. However, they are required to have some proof of sales tax exemption for the purchase, which normally comes part and parcel with the DBA or other business entity registration paperwork in most cities/states. Wholesalers deal with non-end-user sales (exempt from sales tax) all the time, but your average Michael's or Hobby Lobby may not be able to deal with this and may have to charge your friend the sales tax at POS. Depending on the jurisdiction, if this happens, your friend may be able to reduce the amount the customer is paying that is subject to sales tax by the pre-tax value of the materials the customer has paid for, which your friend already paid the tax on. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are interbank payment (settlement) systems closed for weekends and holidays? ### Answer: The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one "real" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are interbank payment (settlement) systems closed for weekends and holidays? ### Answer: TARGET2 is a high value realtime settlement system across Europe and for this to be open on weekends would mean all the Banks including Central Banks in the Euro Zone work. Quite a few times to manage intra day liquidity, banks borrow from each other, hence there is an active monitering of the liquidity by Banks. The borrowing happens over phone and fax and the lending bank sending a high value transaction that credits the borrowing banks. These is the day to day job of treasury group [highly paid individuals] to manage liquidity. Now if on weekends the volume is less, it does not make sense to keep these people, the cost of supporting this for very insiginificant business gain is not driving to build such systems. On the other hand on retail transactions, say Cards [Debit / Credit], ATM, the value is not high and hence there is no treasury function involved and there is a huge need, everything is automated. So no issues. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Working as a freelancer overseas, but US Citizen, what is my tax situation? ### Answer: This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance? ### Answer: Whole life insurance accumulates a cash value on a pre-tax basis. With a paid-up policy, you make payments until a particular age (usually 65 or 70), at which point you are insured for the rest of your life or a very old age like 120. You can also access this pool of money via loans while you are still alive, but you reduce your benefit until you repay the loans. This may be advantageous if you have a high net worth. Also, if you own a business or farm, a permanent policy may be desirable if the transfer of your property to heirs is likely to generate alot of transactional costs like taxes. Nowadays there are probably better ways to do that too. Whole life/universal life is a waste of money 95%+ of the time. An example, my wife and I were recently offered open-enrollment (no medical exam) insurance policies our employers in New York. We're in our early 30's. I bought a term policy paying about $400k which costs $19/mo. My wife was offered a permanent policy that pays $100k which costs $83/mo, and would have a cash value of $35k at age 65. If you invested the $60/mo difference between those policies and earned 5%/year with 30% taxes on the gains, you'd have over $40k with 4x more coverage. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance? ### Answer: Whole life is life insurance that lasts your whole life. Seriously. Since the insurance company must make a profit, and since they know they will always pay out on a whole life policy, whole life tends to be very expensive, and has lower "death" benefits than a term policy. Some of these policies are "paid-up" policies, meaning that they are structured so that you don't have to pay premiums forever. But what it amounts to is that the insurance company invests your premiums, and then pays you a smaller "dividend," much like banks do with savings accounts. Unless you are especially risk-averse, it is almost always a better decision to get an inexpensive term policy, and invest the money you save yourself, rather than letting the insurance company invest it for you and reap most of the benefits. If you are doing things properly, you won't need life insurance your whole life, as retirement investments will eventually replace your working income. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance? ### Answer: For most people Term is the way to go. I consider life insurance a necessity not an investment. See this article on SmartMoney. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance? ### Answer: Just to add to @duffbeer703 comment, additionally, the cash value is NOT part of the death benefit. The policy is intended to grow the cash value to the point where it matches the death benefit and then it 'matures' and you get the cash. My point being, is that since they don't give you both, you are really transferring the reponsiblity from them to you over time, your savings (that you lose) becomes part of the death benefit and they supliment it with less and less over the years so that it would equal the death benefit. @duffbeer703 nailed it right on the head, buy term and invest the difference and once you've got your savings built, really the need for insurance isn't there any longer (if you've got 1/2 million saved, do you really need insurance?) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What's the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance? ### Answer: Term life insurance is just that - life insurance that pays out if you die, just like car insurance pays out if you have an accident. Like car insurance, it's easy to compare amongst term life insurance policies - you can even compare quotes online. Whole life insurance is life insurance plus an investment component. The money that you pay goes to pay for your life insurance and it also is invested by the insurance company. Insurance companies love whole life because it is not a commodity; they can come up with a large variety of variants, and that fact plus the fact that it combines insurance and investment means that is very difficult to compare policies. Not to mention that fact that none of the companies - as far as I can tell - publish their whole life insurance rates, so it is very difficult to shop around. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why do companies award stock as opposed to cash? ### Answer: There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company. The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: In my opinion, the average investor should not be buying individual stocks. One reason why is that the average investor is not capable of reading financial statements and evaluating whether a stock is overpriced or underpriced. As such, they're often tempted to make buy/sell decisions based solely on the current value of a stock as compared to the price at which they bought it. The real reasons to buy (or sell) a stock is the expectation of future growth of the company (or continued profit and expected dividends). If you aren't able to analyze a company's financial statements and business plan, then you really aren't in a position to evaluate that company's stock price. So instead of asking whether to sell based on a recent drop in stock price, you should be investigating why the stock price is falling, and deciding whether those reasons indicate a trend that you expect to continue. If you buy and sell stocks based solely on recent trends in the stock price, you probably will end up buying stocks that have recently risen and selling stocks that have recently fallen. In that case, you are buying high and selling low, which is a recipe for poor financial outcomes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock. Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket. Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket "go to waste"... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory. This is referred to as the "sunk cost fallacy" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now. Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing. Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A). This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset). Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify. You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you. If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today. Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision. By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset). If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B. Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down? Just my 2 cents. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: The stock price is not only based on the general market trend and the stock's current profitability and prospects, but is also based on prediction of how the stock's prospects might change in the future. In almost every case, there are professional investors analysing the stock's future prospects and considering whether it's over or under values for its current price. However even professionals can be totally wrong. If you feel like you have a good grasp on whether the stock will have improving or declining prospects over time, then you might be (if you're right) equipped to make a sensible decision on whether to hold the stock or not. If you don't think you have a good understanding about the stock, then an understanding of the general market direction might at least make stock in general worth holding. Otherwise, you are simply taking a punt. If you know of another stock that has better prospects, then ask yourself why you would hold onto the stock that you think will perform worse. But also bear in mind that (in my understanding) research has shown that, on average, people who try to pick stocks rarely do better than a random selection, and more stock trades means more brokerage (which thanks to brokerage losses would mean you will end up doing worse than average unless you really do know better than the market). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times. You have not lost anything until you sell. If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: You should distinguish between the price and the value of a company: "Price is what you pay, value is what you get". Price is the share price you pay for one share of the company. Value is what a company is worth (based on fundamental analysis, one of the principles of value investing). I would recommend selling the stock only if the company's value has deteriorated due to fundamental changes (e.g. better products from competitors, declining market) and its value is lower than the current share price. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should you keep your stocks if you are too late to sell? ### Answer: If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Are stock prices likely drop off a little bit on a given friday afternoon? ### Answer: It is called the Monday Effect or the Weekend Effect. There are a number of similar theories including the October Effect and January Effect. It's all pretty much bunk. If there were any truth to traders would be all over it and the resulting market forces would wipe it out. Personally, I think all technical analysis has very little value other than to fuel conversations at dinner parties about investments. You might also consider reading about Market efficiency to see further discussion about why technical approaches like this might, but probably don't work. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Are stock prices likely drop off a little bit on a given friday afternoon? ### Answer: There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays. But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year. There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'. And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does spot-futures arbitrage work in the gold market? ### Answer: You're missing the cost-of-carry aspect: The cost of carry or carrying charge is the cost of storing a physical commodity, such as grain or metals, over a period of time. The carrying charge includes insurance, storage and interest on the invested funds as well as other incidental costs. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of the funds necessary to buy the instrument. So in a nutshell, you'd have to store the gold (safely), invest your money now, i.e. you're missing out on interests the money could have earned until the futures delivery date. Well and on top of that you need to get the gold shipped to London or wherever the agreed delivery place is. Edit: Forgot to mention that of course there are arbitrageurs that make sure the futures and spot market prices don't diverge. So the idea isn't that bad as I might have made it sound but being in the arbitrage business myself I should disclaim that profits are small and arbitraging is highly automated, so before you spot a $1 profit somewhere between any two contracts, you can be quite sure it's been taken by an arbitrageur already. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does spot-futures arbitrage work in the gold market? ### Answer: As proposed: Buy 100 oz of gold at $1240 spot = -$124,000 Sell 1 Aug 2014 Future for $1256 = $125,600 Profit $1,600 Alternative Risk-Free Investment: 1 year CD @ 1% would earn $1240 on $124,000 investment. Rate from ads on www.bankrate.com "Real" Profit All you are really being paid for this trade is the difference between the profit $1,600 and the opportunity for $1240 in risk free earnings. That's only $360 or around 0.3%/year. Pitfalls of trying to do this: Many retail futures brokers are set up for speculative traders and do not want to deal with customers selling contracts against delivery, or buying for delivery. If you are a trader you have to keep margin money on deposit. This can be a T-note at some brokerages, but currently T-notes pay almost 0%. If the price of gold rises and you are short a future in gold, then you need to deposit more margin money. If gold went back up to $1500/oz, that could be $24,400. If you need to borrow this money, the interest will eat into a very slim profit margin over the risk free rate. Since you can't deliver, the trades have to be reversed. Although futures trades have cheap commissions ~$5/trade, the bid/ask spread, even at 1 grid, is not so minimal. Also there is often noisy jitter in the price. The spot market in physical gold may have a higher bid/ask spread. You might be able to eliminate some of these issues by trading as a hedger or for delivery. Good luck finding a broker to let you do this... but the issue here for gold is that you'd need to trade in depository receipts for gold that is acceptable for delivery, instead of trading physical gold. To deliver physical gold it would likely have to be tested and certified, which costs money. By the time you've researched this, you'll either discover some more costs associated with it or could have spent your time making more money elsewhere. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How will a 1099 work with an existing W-2? ### Answer: You can do either a 1099 or a W-2. There is no limitations to the number of W-2s one can have in reporting taxes. Problems occur, with the IRS, when one "forgets" to report income. Even if one holds only one job at a time, people typically have more than one W-2 if they change jobs within the year. The W-2 is the simplest way to go and you may want to consider doing this if you do not intend to work this side business into significant income. However, a 1099 gig is preferred by many in some situations. For things like travel expenses, you will probably receive the income from these on a 1099, but you can deduct them from your income using a Schedule C. Along these lines you may be able to deduct a wide variety of other things like travel to and from the client's location, equipment such as computers and office supplies, and maybe a portion of your home internet bill. Also this opens up different retirement contributions schemes such as a simplified employee pension. This does come with some drawbacks, however. First your life is more complicated as things need to be documented to become actual business expenses. You are much more likely to be audited by the IRS. Your taxes become more complicated and it is probably necessary to employee a CPA to do them. If you do this for primary full time work you will have to buy your own benefits. Most telling you will have to pay both sides of social security taxes on most profits. (Keep in mind that a good account can help you transfer profits to dividends which will allow you to be taxed at 15% and avoid social security taxes.) So it really comes down to what you see this side gig expanding into and your goals. If you want to make this a real business, then go 1099, if you are just doing this for a fes months and a few thousand dollars, go W-2. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How will a 1099 work with an existing W-2? ### Answer: You can have multiple W2 forms on the same tax return. If you are using software, it will have the ability for you to enter additional W2 forms. If you are doing it by paper, just follow the instructions and combine the numbers at the correct place and attach both. Similarly you can also have a 1099 with and without a W2. Just remember that with a 1099 you will have to pay the self employment tax ( FICA taxes, both employee and employer) and that no taxes will be withheld. You will want to either adjust the withholding on your main job or file quartely estimated taxes. Travel reimbursement should be the same tax exempt wise. The difference is that with a 1098, you will need to list your business expenses for deduction on the corresponding tax schedule. The value on the 1099 will include travel reimbursement. But then you can deduct your self employment expenses. I believe schedule C is where this occurs. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Hedging against Exchange Rate Risk ### Answer: How can I calculate my currency risk exposure? You own securities that are priced in dollars, so your currency risk is the amount (all else being equal) that your portfolio drops if the dollar depreciates relative to the Euro between now and the time that you plan to cash out your investments. Not all stocks, though, have a high correlation relative to the dollar. Many US companies (e.g. Apple) do a lot of business in foreign countries and do not necessarily move in line with the Dollar. Calculate the correlation (using Excel or other statistical programs) between the returns of your portfolio and the change in FX rate between the Dollar and Euro to see how well your portfolio correlated with that FX rate. That would tell you how much risk you need to mitigate. how can I hedge against it? There are various Currency ETFs that will track the USD/EUR exchange rate, so one option could be to buy some of those to offset your currency risk calculated above. Note that ETFs do have fees associated with them, although they should be fairly small (one I looked at had a 0.4% fee, which isn't terrible but isn't nothing). Also note that there are ETFs that employ currency risk mitigation internally - including one on the Nasdaq 100 . Note that this is NOT a recommendation for this ETF - just letting you know about alternative products that MIGHT meet your needs. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Hedging against Exchange Rate Risk ### Answer: You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If someone gives me cash legally, can my deposit trigger an audit for them? ### Answer: Am I right to worry about both of these? Of course. Who carries $75K in cash for no good reason? Your friend got the cash from somewhere, didn't he? If its legit - there's paper trail to show. Same for your parents. If you/they can show the legit paper trail - there's nothing to worry about, the hassle, at worse, is a couple of letters to the IRS. If the money is not legit (your friend is selling crack to the kids in the hood and your parents robbed a 7/11 to give you the money, for example) - there may be problems. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If someone gives me cash legally, can my deposit trigger an audit for them? ### Answer: Yes you should worry and take care not to violate the law or provide any appearance of impropriety. Every bank in the USA is required under the Bank Secrecy Act to report cash transactions over $10,000 the same day to the IRS -- and here's the fun secret part -- without notification to the depositor. But splitting the deposits up into smaller amounts is also a crime, called "structuring". On occasion there is a news story where a retail business that naturally must deposit cash from customers will be (falsely?) accused of structuring, e.g.: Feds seize grocery store's entire bank account -- Institute for Justice defends grocer Under the legal doctrine of civil asset forfeiture, your money can be accused of a crime, seized, and tried separately from its owner. The actual cases indicate the money as defendant, i.e. "US v $124,700" In this somewhat bizarre system of "justice", the owner need not be charged with a crime, and is not in immediate peril of going to prison (about the only upside in this, but might be temporary because the authorities haven't charged the owner yet). When only the money is charged with a crime, there is no requirement for the government to supply a public defender for the owners who can not afford a lawyer.... can not afford a lawyer, because the government took all their money.... ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If someone gives me cash legally, can my deposit trigger an audit for them? ### Answer: In the event of an audit, you AND your friends need to have already reported the cash the same way in previous tax filings. Even differences between legitimate sources can result in civil and criminal sanctions from the IRS, let alone questionable, dubious and illegal sources. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If someone gives me cash legally, can my deposit trigger an audit for them? ### Answer: Why would you even accept 75K in cash? If anything is going to trigger an audit, this will be it. 75K in cash deposited will look like money laundring, so you better have a paper trail ready to prove this is legal or this won't end well. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are estimated taxes due “early” for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? ### Answer: There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are estimated taxes due “early” for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? ### Answer: Here's an answer copied from https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-second-quarter-of-estimated-quarterly-taxes-only-two-months Estimated taxes used to be paid based on a calendar quarter, but in the 60's the Oct due date was moved back to Sept to pull the third quarter cash receipts into the previous federal budget year which begins on Oct 1 every year, allowing the federal government to begin the year with a current influx of cash. That left an extra month that had to be accounted for in the schedule somewhere. Since individuals and most businesses report taxes on a calendar year, the fourth quarter needed to continue to end on Dec 31 which meant the Jan 15 due date could not be changed, that left April and July 15 dues dates that could change. April 15 was already widely known as the tax deadline, so the logical choice was the second quarter which had its due date changed from July 15 to June 15. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are estimated taxes due “early” for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? ### Answer: I suspect that the payments were originally due near the end of each quarter (March 15, June 15, September 15, and December 15) but then the December payment was extended to January 15 to allow for end-of-year totals to be calculated, and then the March payment was extended to April 15 to coincide with Income Tax Return filing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why are estimated taxes due “early” for the 2nd and 3rd quarters only? ### Answer: nan ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it a bad idea to buy a motorcycle with a lien on it? ### Answer: In the case of a vehicle with a lien, there is a specific place on the title to have a lien holder listed, and the holder of the lien will also hold the title until the lien is cleared. Usually this means you have to pay off the loan when you purchase the vehicle. If that loan is held by a bank, meet the seller at the bank and pay the loan directly with them and have them send the title directly to you when the loan is paid. This usually involves writing up a bill of sale to give to the bank when paying the loan. The only thing you're trying to avoid here is paying cash to the seller--who then keeps the cash without paying the lien holder--who then keeps the title and repossesses the motorcycle. Don't pay the seller if they don't have the title ready to sign over to you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it a bad idea to buy a motorcycle with a lien on it? ### Answer: It's extra work for you to purchase a vehicle that has an outstanding lien on it. It's not uncommon, but there are things to take care of and watch out for. Really, all it means is that the vehicle you're trying to purchase hasn't been paid for in full by the current owner. Where things can get dodgy is ensuring that all outstanding debts are paid against the vehicle at the time you take ownership of it, otherwise the owners of those debts could still reclaim the vehicle. Here's a good article about making this kind of purchase. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it a bad idea to buy a motorcycle with a lien on it? ### Answer: A lien is a mechanism to impede legal title transfer of a vehicle, real property, or sometimes, expensive business equipment. That's why title companies exist - to make sure there are no liens against something before a buyer hands money to a seller. The lien can be attached to a loan, unpaid labor related to the item (a mechanic's lien) or unpaid taxes, and there are other scenarios where this could occur. The gist of all this is that the seller of the vehicle mentioned does not have clear title if there is a lien. This introduces a risk for the buyer. The buyer can pay the seller the money to cover the lien (in the case of a bank loan) but that doesn't mean the seller will actually pay off the loan (so the title is never clear!). This article recommends visiting the bank with the seller, and getting title on-the-spot. However, this isn't always an option, as a local bank branch isn't probably going to have the title document available, though the seller might be able to make some arrangement for a local branch to have the title available before a visit to pay off the loan. The low-risk approach is for the seller to have clear title before any money changes hands. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to manage household finances (income & expenses) [duplicate] ### Answer: My wife and I have close to equal incomes, and are not young. What we have is this: Some people would classify our system as a bit draconian as we each have "allowance"; however, it makes sure spending does not get out of wack and we work together to meet our goals. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to manage household finances (income & expenses) [duplicate] ### Answer: Obviously, there are many approaches. I’ll describe what we do and why we think it is successful. I have seen many couples having disagreements and even divorce over money; it seems that this is a typical reason to fight and sometimes fight badly. The realization is that different people have different preferences what to spend their money on, and if you are not rich, it continuously leads to disagreements - ‘did you really need another pair of shoes?’, etc. Our solution is a weekly allowance. First, all our money goes into one pot and is considered equal. Many couples find that a difficult step, but I never thought twice about it - I trust my spouse, and I share my life with her, so why not my money? From this, we agree on an ‘allowance’ that is used to cover any non-common cost; this includes all clothing, dining out, buying things, etc. The amount was chosen to match about what we spent for those things anyway, and then adjusted annually. The main point is that there is no critique allowed about what this is spent on - you can blow it all on shoes, or buy books, or wine and dine, or gamble it away, whatever. We are doing this since 23 years now, and we are very happy with the results; we never have financial ‘fights’ anymore. Disadvantages are the effort - you need to keep track of it somehow. Either you use a separate credit card, or hand it out in cash, or have a complete accounting (I do the latter, because I want to). Regarding all other spend, we use the accounting to plan ahead for at least a year on all cost and income that are expected, and that shows us the available cash flow and where it might get tight. It also shows you where the money goes, and where you could cut if cutting is needed (or wanted). Again, there is some effort in collecting the data, but it is worth it (for us). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can signing up at optoutprescreen.com improve my credit score? ### Answer: If I had a business and was able to claim a feature, I would. It's simple marketing. If in fact, opting out helped your score, the site would promote that feature. Soft pulls for prescreened offers are not counted. No more than my constant peek at my score through Credit Karma. Opt out, if you wish. The benefit of course is less mail, which saves trees. Less risk of identity theft, someone can take the application and try to forge from there. Less risk of an infected paper cut opening this mail (don't ask.) I am a compulsive mail shredder, so I peek and these and shred. A year ago I received an offer of $30,000 zero interest, max transfer fee $50. I sent the entire sum to my 5% mortgage. Now I refinanced and paying that back. It saved me $1500 over the year. Too much trouble for some, but how long does it take to make $1500? For 40% of this country's families, that's a week's pay. The monthly extra bill didn't bother me. This last paragraph is an anecdote, not so much addressing question. I did that first. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can signing up at optoutprescreen.com improve my credit score? ### Answer: Sounds like a case of false causality. If somebody is taking the time to sign up at opt out sites, then that same person is probably making other smart decisions with their credit, causing scores to rise. Optoutprescreen.com does not help your score, the other actions taken might. People seeing different results can probably be tied to the timeframe they signed up. People who signed up then took care of their credit vs. people whose credit was already good and then signed up. A 10 pt bounce one way or the other is not significant. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can signing up at optoutprescreen.com improve my credit score? ### Answer: Some credit checks are ignored as part of the scoring process. Some companies will pull your info, to make sure you haven't become a risk. Others will inquire before they send you an offer. Since you didn't initiate the inquiry it can't impact your score. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can signing up at optoutprescreen.com improve my credit score? ### Answer: Unsolicited credit checks like that don't affect your credit score. Those checks only count if they result from you applying for credit somewhere. So No. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can signing up at optoutprescreen.com improve my credit score? ### Answer: If you are the type of person that gets drawn in to "suspect" offers, then it is conceivable that if you are not signing the services offered your credit would be improved as your long term credit strengthens and the number of new lines of credit are reduced. But if you just throw it all away anyway then it is unlikely to help improve your score. But there is no direct impact on your credit score. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: ...instead of all of us draining our money into a landlord... Instead, you are suggesting that still everyone (except you) will drain their money into a landlord, just that now the landlord is you. I guess what that really means is that you will need to have landlord tenant agreements between you and your roommates. When things break or need replacing you'll have to foot the bill and as your tenants, your "roomies" might not be too forgiving when things need fixing. When the fridge breaks down, you'll have to buy a new one immediately. Yard work is your sole responsibility, unless you offer discounted rent or other perks. What about service bills: energy, water, sewage, internet, television, etc? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: There is a term for this. If you google "House Hacking" you will get lots of articles and advice. Some of it will pertain to multifamily properties but a good amount should be owner occupied and renting bedrooms. I would play with a mortgage calculator like Whats My Payment. Include Principle, interest, taxes and insurance see how much it will cost. At 110k your monthly fixed payments will depend on a number of factors (down payment, interest, real estate tax rate and insurance cost) but $700-$1000 would be a decent guess in my area. Going off that with two roommates willing to pay $500 a month you would have no living expenses except any maintenance or utilities. With your income I would expect you could make the payment alone if needed (and it may be needed) so it seems fairly low risk from my perspective. You need somewhere to live you are used to roommates and you can pay the entire cost yourself in a worst case. Some more things to consider.. Insurance will be more expensive, you want to ensure you as the landlord you are covered if anything happens. If a tenant burns down your house or trips and falls and decides to sue you insurance will protect you. Capital Expenses (CapEx) replacing things as they wear out. On a home the roof, siding, flooring and all mechanicals(furnace, water heater, etc.) have a lifespan and will need to be replaced. On rental properties a portion of rent should be set aside to replace these things in the future. If a roof lasts 20yrs,costs $8,000 and your roof is 10years old you should be setting aside $70 a month so in the future when this know expense comes up it is not a hardship. Taxes Yes there is a special way to report income from an arrangement like this. You will fill out a Schedule E form in addition to your regular tax documents. You will also be able to write off a percent of housing expenses and depreciation on the home. I have been told it is not a simple tax situation and to consult a CPA that specializes in real estate. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: I've done this, both as one of the renters and (in a different house) as the landlord. I had roommates I had not lived with before though. It's definitely doable, but can get awkward. Some advice in no particular order Make sure you can afford the house on your own. This avoids the awkward situation of making you financially dependent on your friends. Also, it shouldn't be a problem for a 110k house on a 70k salary. Set the rent below market rates. The arrangement should be financially beneficial to everyone, not just yourself. Expect your roommates to leave eventually. These days people will go where job opportunities take them. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: It's doable, but there's a fair amount of risk involved. The biggest issue is that your roommates could move out. It's possible that they could have a falling out, get a job in a different city, or just move on. How difficult would it be to find another roommate? How many roommates can you lose and still afford to pay the mortgage, insurance, taxes, and all the rest of your living expenses? Even if you you retain all of your roommates until the mortgage is paid off, there's still some risk involved. If you were to lose your job, could you continue to make mortgage payments? Worst case scenario is that you could become unemployed for a time while home values in your State/City/neighborhood are crashing. Last, the position on landlord has the potential to be lucrative, but also comes with a fair amount of responsibility. It will be a drain on your time to maintain the house and to make sure you always have tenants. I know you said that your roommates are good about paying on time, but are you willing to evict a friend because they won't/can't pay rent? It's easier to ask the landlord for an extension on rent when you're friends. All that being said, I think that this idea is worth considering. My recommendation is that you consider every aspect of it, and proceed cautiously if you choose to do so. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Buy home and leverage roommates, or split rent? ### Answer: Mixing friendship and money, whether that's loans or landlording, is risky. Often things work out, but sometimes the unexpected happens, and it doesn't. If things go wrong, are you prepared to walk away from either the friendship or the money? After you've considered that, the next question is how your roommates feel about the deal. You're looking to charge your friends $2000 to rent part of a property that, from the sound of it, they could rent much cheaper from a stranger. Maybe the market is different in Cleveland, but in my area, I'd expect to pay $2000 in rent for a place worth closer to $300,000 than $100,000. Have your roommates expressed interest in the idea, and have you discussed dollar values with them? Are you still interested if they ended up paying $1600 in rent? $1000? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Auto Insurance: Adding another car to the existing policy (GEICO) ### Answer: They'll refund your money (though maybe with a small service charge). I'm sure they regularly deal with new car sales gone wrong. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Auto Insurance: Adding another car to the existing policy (GEICO) ### Answer: tl;dr: Call them. I'd be very surprised if you have a problem. I used to have have a policy with Geico, and would pay for my car insurance 6 months at a time. About 2 months into my last period, I purchased a house. Unfortunately, Geico didn't offer homeowners insurance in my state, so I ended switching to another company that offered a better auto+home combined policy. Since I had already paid for 6 months of coverage, I figured I'd just be stuck being double-covered for 4 months. So, I didn't bother doing anything until the end of the 6 months and called them to cancel the auto-renewal thinking what I've already paid was a sunk cost. The asked me why I was canceling and I explained the situation and they backdated the cancellation to when I got my policy with the other company and Geico issued me a refund for the time there was overlap. Considering that they did that for a leaving customer, I'd expect them to be able to cancel the policy on a new car of a current paying customer with no issues. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Auto Insurance: Adding another car to the existing policy (GEICO) ### Answer: When adding a new or used car to the policy I have found that it is best to call the company in advance. I let them know I will be adding a car to the policy in the next few days, but I have no idea of the VIN or other info. I have a policy with a different company and they have told me that I am automatically covered as long as I provide the VIN and other details within 30 days. The next business day after the purchase I provide everything they need, and a new bill is generated. When removing a car from the policy it has worked the same way, a new bill is generated when removing the car. Depending on the timing and amounts they have either credited my account or sent a check. They should have no problem removing a car that was accidentally on the policy. It might be that they charge you a days coverage. When you call them about the refund, ask if the coverage for an additional vehicle is automatic, that way you don't have to provide the info until after you get the car home. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why might a brokerage firm stop offering a particular ETF commission free? ### Answer: Forbes has an article investigating this. Here are the key parts: On line at the bottom of the list of funds there is an entire screen of grey-faded micro print which includes this telling disclosure: TD Ameritrade receives remuneration from certain ETFs (exchange-traded funds) that participate in the commission-free ETF program for shareholder, administrative and/or other services. In other words, TD Ameritrade is now enforcing a pay-to-play for their so-called commission-free exchange-traded funds. They are willing to forego their $6.95 trading commission in favor of remuneration directly from the ETF vendors. Because Vanguard refuses to pay such money to custodians, they are no longer being allowed to play. and Joseph Giannone, a TD Ameritrade spokesman, was quoted as saying, "With any business decision, client needs are paramount, but the underlying economics of programs can’t be ignored. ... In line with industry practices, certain providers pay servicing, administrative or other fees. Vanguard elected not to be a part of the new program." So basically it sounds like Vanguard, and presumably iShares as well, were unwilling to pay TD Ameritrade to continue offering their ETFs commission-free. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can an S-Corp write off work and merchandise expenses donated to a non-profit organization? ### Answer: An S-corp doesn't pay income tax -- taxation is pass-through. This being the case, there are no tax deductions it could take for charitable giving. The solution would be for you to make the contribution out of your own pocket and then personally claim the deduction on your own taxes. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Can an S-Corp write off work and merchandise expenses donated to a non-profit organization? ### Answer: Yes. The S-Corp can deduct up to the amount it actually incurred in expenses. If your actual expenses to build the carport were $1000, then the $1000 would be deductible, and your business should be able to show $1000 in receipts or inventory changes. Note you cannot deduct beyond your actual expenses even if you would normally charge more. For example, suppose you invoiced the non-profit $2000 for the carport, and once the bill was paid you turned around and donated the $2000 back to the non-profit. In that case you would be deducting $1000 for your cost + $2000 donation for a total of $3000. But, you also would have $2000 in income so in the end you would end up with a $1000 loss which is exactly what your expenses were to begin with. It would probably be a good idea to be able to explain why you did this for free. If somehow you personally benefit from it then it could possibly be considered income to you, similar to if you bought a TV for your home with company funds. It would probably be cleaner from an accounting perspective if you followed through as described above- invoice the non-profit and then donate the payment back to them. Though not necessary, it could lesson any doubt about your motives. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What happens to my stocks when broker goes bankrupt? ### Answer: Here is my perception of the situation, obtained from reading Degiro's Client Agreement. If Degiro shuts down, it will notify you about the fact at least one month in advance, and you will have enough time to order a transfer of your positions to a different broker. If Degiro shuts down unexpectedly, your assets will remain to be held at SPV, a separate legal entity which Degiro uses to hold the financial instruments belonging to the clients. Since SPV does nothing else but holding the assets, it is very unlikely that something bad will happen with it on its own. With some help from Degiro and/or the regulator (AFM) you should be able to transfer your assets from SPV to a different custodian and broker and thus regain control over them. If you have a non-Custody account, you have slightly higher chances of losing your assets, because Degiro can borrow your securities held at SPV. If both the client for whom Degiro borrowed a security and Degiro itself go bankrupt at the same time, the lent security will not be returned to SPV, there will arise a shortage, which will be proportionally distributed among the accounts of the clients holding this particular security. However, then the investor compensation scheme should kick in and help you recover up to 20000 EUR of your losses. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What happens to my stocks when broker goes bankrupt? ### Answer: If you are using a US broker, you are protected by SIPC up to $500,000. SIPC also oversees the liquidation of the broker itself, either by appointing a trustee, or by directly contacting clients. If they are able to transfer accounts to a healthy broker before bankruptcy, they will do so, but if not, you will need to file a claim with them. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What happens to my stocks when broker goes bankrupt? ### Answer: +1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: It's important to remember what a share is. It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company. The company has one million shares on its register. You own one thousand of them. That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share. The company has machinery and land worth $1M. That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company. If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share. The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales. That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit? It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business. The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time. However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out. But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend. Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out. Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Stephen's answer is the 100% correct one made with the common Economics assumption, that people are rational. A company that never has paid dividends, is still worth something to people because of its potential to start paying dividends later and it is often better to grow now and payoff later. However, the actual answer is much more disapointing, because people are not rational and the stock market is no longer about investing in companies or earning dividends. Most of the value of a stock is for the same reason that gold, stamps, coins and bitcoins, and Australian houses are worth anything, that is, because enough people say it is worth something. Even stocks that pay dividends, very few people buy it for dividends. They buy it because they believe someone else will be willing to buy it for slightly more, shortly after. Different traders have different timeframes, ranging from seconds to months. Houses and stock are of course partially valuable due to the fundamentals, but the major reason they are purchased is just to resell at a profit. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case. Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question. A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized. By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth. Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: This is an excellent question, one that I've pondered before as well. Here's how I've reconciled it in my mind. Why should we agree that a stock is worth anything? After all, if I purchase a share of said company, I own some small percentage of all of its assets, like land, capital equipment, accounts receivable, cash and securities holdings, etc., as others have pointed out. Notionally, that seems like it should be "worth" something. However, that doesn't give me the right to lay claim to them at will, as I'm just a (very small) minority shareholder. The old adage says that "something is only worth what someone is willing to pay you for it." That share of stock doesn't actually give me any liquid control over the company's assets, so why should someone else be willing to pay me something for it? As you noted, one reason why a stock might be attractive to someone else is as a (potentially tax-advantaged) revenue stream via dividends. Especially in this low-interest-rate environment, this might well exceed that which I might obtain in the bond market. The payment of income to the investor is one way that a stock might have some "inherent value" that is attractive to investors. As you asked, though, what if the stock doesn't pay dividends? As a small shareholder, what's in it for me? Without any dividend payments, there's no regular method of receiving my invested capital back, so why should I, or anyone else, be willing to purchase the stock to begin with? I can think of a couple reasons: Expectation of a future dividend. You may believe that at some point in the future, the company will begin to pay a dividend to investors. Dividends are paid as a percentage of a company's total profits, so it may make sense to purchase the stock now, while there is no dividend, banking on growth during the no-dividend period that will result in even higher capital returns later. This kind of skirts your question: a non-dividend-paying stock might be worth something because it might turn into a dividend-paying stock in the future. Expectation of a future acquisition. This addresses the original premise of my argument above. If I can't, as a small shareholder, directly access the assets of the company, why should I attribute any value to that small piece of ownership? Because some other entity might be willing to pay me for it in the future. In the event of an acquisition, I will receive either cash or another company's shares in compensation, which often results in a capital gain for me as a shareholder. If I obtain a capital gain via cash as part of the deal, then this proves my point: the original, non-dividend-paying stock was worth something because some other entity decided to acquire the company, paying me more cash than I paid for my shares. They are willing to pay this price for the company because they can then reap its profits in the future. If I obtain a capital gain via stock in as part of the deal, then the process restarts in some sense. Maybe the new stock pays dividends. Otherwise, perhaps the new company will do something to make its stock worth more in the future, based on the same future expectations. The fact that ownership in a stock can hold such positive future expectations makes them "worth something" at any given time; if you purchase a stock and then want to sell it later, someone else is willing to purchase it from you so they can obtain the right to experience a positive capital return in the future. While stock valuation schemes will vary, both dividends and acquisition prices are related to a company's profits: This provides a connection between a company's profitability, expectations of future growth, and its stock price today, whether it currently pays dividends or not. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: If so, then if company A never pays dividends to its shareholders, then what is the point of owning company A's stock? The stock itself can go up in price. This is not necessarily pure speculation either, the company could just reinvest the profits and grow. Since you own part of a company, your share would also increase in value. The company could also decide to start paying dividend. I think one rule of thumb is that growing companies won't pay out, since they reinvest all profit to grow even more, but very large companies like McDonalds or Microsoft who don't really have much room left to grow will pay dividends more. Surely the right to one vote for company A's Board can't be that valuable. Actually, Google for instance neither pays dividend nor do you get to vote. Basically all you get for your money is partial ownership of the company. This still gives you the right to seize Google assets if you go bankrupt, if there's any asset left once the creditors are done (credit gets priority over equity). What is it that I'm missing? What you are missing is that the entire concept of the dividend is an illusion. There's little qualitative difference between a stock that pays dividend, and a stock that doesn't. If you were going to buy the stock, then hold it forever and collect dividend, you could get the same thing with a dividend-less stock by simply waiting for it to gain say 5% value, then sell 4.76% of your stock and call the cash your dividend. "But wait," you say, "that's not the same - my net worth has decreased!" Guess what, stocks that do pay dividend usually do drop in value right after the pay out, and they drop by about the relative value of the dividend as well. Likewise, you could take a stock that does pay dividend, and make it look exactly like a non-paying stock by simply taking every dividend you get and buying more of the same stock with it. So from this simplistic point of view, it is irrelevant whether the stock itself pays dividend or not. There is always the same decision of whether to cut the goose or let it lay a few more eggs that every shareholder has to make it. Paying a dividend is essentially providing a different default choice, but makes little difference with regards to your choices. There is however more to it than simple return on investment arithmetic: As I said, the alternative to paying dividend is reinvesting profits back into the enterprise. If the company decided to pay out dividend, that means they think all the best investing is done, and they don't really have a particularly good idea for what to do with the extra money. Conversely, not paying is like management telling the shareholders, "no we're not done, we're still building our business!". So it can be a way of judging whether the company is concentrating on generating profit or growing itself. Needless to say the, the market is wild and unpredictable and not everyone obeys such assumptions. Furthermore, as I said, you can effectively overrule the decision by increasing or decreasing your position, regardless of whether they have decided to pay dividend to begin with. Lastly, there may be some subtle differences with regards to things like how the income is taxed and so on. These don't really have much to do with the market itself, but the bureaucracy tacked onto the market. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: While there are many very good and detailed answers to this question, there is one key term from finance that none of them used and that is Net Present Value. While this is a term generally associate with debt and assets, it also can be applied to the valuation models of a company's share price. The price of the share of a stock in a company represents the Net Present Value of all future cash flows of that company divided by the total number of shares outstanding. This is also the reason behind why the payment of dividends will cause the share price valuation to be less than its valuation if the company did not pay a dividend. That/those future outflows are factored into the NPV calculation, actually performed or implied, and results in a current valuation that is less than it would have been had that capital been retained. Unlike with a fixed income security, or even a variable rate debenture, it is difficult to predict what the future cashflows of a company will be, and how investors chose to value things as intangible as brand recognition, market penetration, and executive competence are often far more subjective that using 10 year libor rates to plug into a present value calculation for a floating rate bond of similar tenor. Opinion enters into the calculus and this is why you end up having a greater degree of price variance than you see in the fixed income markets. You have had situations where companies such as Amazon.com, Google, and Facebook had highly valued shares before they they ever posted a profit. That is because the analysis of the value of their intellectual properties or business models would, overtime provide a future value that was equivalent to their stock price at that time. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Imagine that a company never distributes any of its profits to its shareholders. The company might invest these profits in the business to grow future profits or it might just keep the money in the bank. Either way, the company is growing in value. But how does that help you as a small investor? If the share price never went up then the market value would become tiny compared to the actual value of the company. At some point another company would see this and put a bid in for the whole company. The shareholders wouldn't sell their shares if the bid didn't reflect the true value of the company. This would mean that your shares would suddenly become much more valuable. So, the reason why the share price goes up over time is to represent the perceived value of the company. As this could be realised either by the distribution of dividends (or a return of capital) to shareholders, or by a bidder buying the whole company, the shares are actually worth something to someone in the market. So the share price will tend to track the value of the company even if dividends are never paid. In the short term a share price reflects sentiment, but over the long term it will tend to track the value of the company as measured by its profitability. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a "company". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this "promise to pay" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: I haven't seen any of the other answers address this point – shares are (a form of) ownership of a company and thus they are an entitlement to the proceeds of the company, including proceeds from liquidation. Imagine an (extreme, contrived) example whereby you own shares in a company that is explicitly intended to only exist for a finite and definite period, say to serve as the producers of a one-time event. Consider a possible sequence of major events in this company's life: So why would the shares of this hypothetical company be worth anything? Because the company itself is worth something, or rather the stuff that the company owns is worth something, even (or in my example, especially) in the event of its dissolution or liquidation. Besides just the stuff that a company owns, why else would owning a portion of a company be a good idea, i.e. why would I pay for such a privilege? Buying shares of a company is a good idea if you believe (and are correct) that a company will make larger profits or capture more value (e.g. buy and control more valuable stuff) than other people believe. If your beliefs don't significantly differ from others then (ideally) the price of the companies stock should reflect all of the future value that everyone expects it to have, tho that value is discounted based on time preference, i.e. how much more valuable a given amount of money or a given thing of value is today versus some time in the future. Some notes on time preference: But apart from whether you should buy shares in a specific company, owning shares can still be valuable. Not only are shares a claim on a company's current assets (in the event of liquidation) but they are also claims on all future assets of the company. So if a company is growing then the value of shares now should reflect the (discounted) future value of the company, not just the value of its assets today. If shares in a company pays dividends then the company gives you money for owning shares. You already understand why that's worth something. It's basically equivalent to an annuity, tho dividends are much more likely to stop or change whereas the whole point of an annuity is that it's a (sometimes) fixed amount paid at fixed intervals, i.e. reliable and dependable. As CQM points out in their answer, part of the value of stock shares, to those that own them, and especially to those considering buying them, is the expectation or belief that they can sell those shares for a greater price than what they paid for them – irrespective of the 'true value' of the stock shares. But even in a world where everyone (magically) had the same knowledge always, a significant component of a stock's value is independent of its value as a source of trading profit. As Jesse Barnum points out in their answer, part of the value of stocks that don't pay dividends relative to stocks that do is due to the (potential) differences in tax liabilities incurred between dividends and long-term capital gains. This however, is not the primary source of value of a stock share. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Remember that long term appreciation has tax advantages over short-term dividends. If you buy shares of a company, never earn any dividends, and then sell the stock for a profit in 20 years, you've essentially deferred all of the capital gains taxes (and thus your money has compounded faster) for a 20 year period. For this reason, I tend to favor non-dividend stocks, because I want to maximize my long-term gain. Another example, in estate planning, is something called a step-up basis: ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Not sure how this has got this far with no obvious discussion about the huge tax advantages of share buy backs vs dividend paying. Companies face a very simple choice with excess capital - pay to shareholders in the form of a taxable dividend, invest in future growth where they expect to make more than $1 for every $1 invested, or buy back the equivalent amount of stock on the market, thus concentrating the value of each share the equivalent amount with no tax issues. Of these, dividends are often by far the worst choice. Virtually all sane shareholders would just rather the company put the capital to work or concentrate the value of their shares by taking many off the market rather than paying a taxable dividend. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Stock has value to the buyer even if it does not currently pay dividends, since it is part ownership of the company (and the company's assets). The owners (of which you are now a part) hire managers to make a "dividend policy decision." If the company can reinvest the profits into a project that would earn more than the "minimum acceptable rate of return," then they should do so. If the company has no internal investment opportunities at or above this desired rate, then the company has an obligation to declare a dividend. Paying out a dividend returns this portion of profit to the owners, who can then invest their money elsewhere and earn more. For example: The stock market currently has, say, a 5% rate of return. Company A has a $1M profit and can invest it in a project with an expected 10% rate of return, so they should do so. Company B has a $1M profit, but their best internal project only has an expected 2% rate of return. It is in the owners' best interest to receive their portion of their company's profit as a dividend and re-invest it in other stocks. (Others have pointed out the tax deferrment portion of dividend policy, so I skipped that) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Since I'm missing the shortest and simplest answer, I'll add it: A car also doesn't offer dividends, yet it's still worth money. A $100 bill doesn't offer dividends, yet people are willing to offer services, or goods, or other currencies, to own that $100 bill. It's the same with a stock. If other people are willing to buy it off you for a price X, it's worth at least close to price X to you. In theory the price X depends on the value of the assets of the company, including unknown values like expected future profits or losses. Speaking from experience as a trader, in practice it's very often really just price X because others pay price X. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: You are missing the fact that the company can buy back its own shares. For simplicity, imagine the case that you own ALL of the shares of XYZ corporation. XYZ is very profitable, and it makes $1M per year. There are two ways to return $1M to you, the shareholder: 1) The company could buy back some fraction of your shares for $1M, or 2) The company could pay you a $1M dividend. After (1) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (2) you'd own ALL of the shares and have $1M. After (1) the total number of shares would be fewer, but saying you owned less of XYZ would be like complaining that you are shorter when your height is measured in inches than in centimeters. So indeed, a buyback is an alternative to a dividend. Furthermore, buybacks have a number of tax advantages over dividends to taxable shareholders (see my answer in Can I get a dividend "free lunch" by buying a stock just before the ex-dividend date and selling it immediately after?). That said, it is important to recognize the shareholders who are less savvy about knowing when to accept the buyback (by correctly valuing the company) can get burned at the profit of the savvy shareholders. A strategy to avoid being burned if you aren't price savvy is simply to sell a fraction in order to get your pro rata share of the buyback, in many respects simulating a dividend but still reaping some (but not all) of the tax advantages of a buyback. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: The company gets it worth from how well it performs. For example if you buy company A for $50 a share and it beats its expected earnings, its price will raise and lets say after a year or two it can be worth around $70 or maybe more.This is where you can sell it and make more money than dividends. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: There are two ways that an asset can generate value. One is that the asset generates some revenue (e.g. you buy a house for $100,000 and rent it out for $1,000 per month) and the second way is that the asset appreciates (e.g you buy a house for $100,000, you don't rent it out and 5 years later you sell it for $200,000). Stocks are the same. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Most companies get taken over eventually. More to the point, ANY company with a public float over 50 percent that's large and viable enough to fall on people's radar screens will get taken over if its stock price is "too low" relative to its long term prospects. It is the possibility of a takeover, as much as anything else, that bolsters the stock prices of many companies, particularly those that don't pay dividends. In essence, the takeover price is just one large liquidating "dividend." ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: Securities change in prices. You can buy ten 10'000 share of a stock for $1 each one day on release and sell it for $40 each if you're lucky in the future for a gross profit of 40*10000 = 400'0000 ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: If a stock doesn't pay dividends, then why is the stock worth anything? ### Answer: There are two main ways you can make money through shares: through dividends and through capital gains. If the company is performing well and increasing profits year after year, its Net Worth will increase, and if the company continues to beat expectations, then over the long term the share price will follow and increase as well. On the other hand, if the company performs poorly, has a lot of debt and is losing money, it may well stop paying dividends. There will be more demand for stocks that perform well than those that perform badly, thus driving the share price of these stocks up even if they don't pay out dividends. There are many market participants that will use different information to make their decisions to buy or sell a particular stock. Some will be long term buy and hold, others will be day traders, and there is everything in between. Some will use fundamentals to make their decisions, others will use charts and technicals, some will use a combination, and others will use completely different information and methods. These different market participants will create demand at various times, thus driving the share price of good companies up over time. The annual returns from dividends are often between 1% and 6%, and, in some cases, up to 10%. However, annual returns from capital gains can be 20%, 50%, 100% or more. That is the main reason why people still buy stocks that pay no dividends. It is my reason for buying them too. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the primary investment strategies people use and why do they use them? ### Answer: There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea "you can't beat the market." Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: "the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of "SPY" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the "fundamental analysis" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are the primary investment strategies people use and why do they use them? ### Answer: Your question seems to be making assumptions around “investing”, that investing is only about stock market and bonds or similar things. I would suggest that you should look much broader than that in terms of your investments. Investment Types Your should consider (and include) some or all of the following for your investments, depending on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. I love @Blackjack’s explanation of diversification into other asset classes producing a lower risk portfolio. Excellent! All the above need to be considered in this spread of risk, depending as I said earlier on your age, your attitude towards risk, the number of dependents you have, your lifestyle, etc. Stock Market Investment I’ll focus most of the rest of my post on the stock markets, as that is where my main experience lies. But the comments are applicable to a greater or lesser extent to other types of investing. We then come to how engaged you want to be with your investments. Two general management styles are passive investment management versus active investment management. @Blackjack says That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. The difficulty with this idea is that profitability is very dependent upon when the stocks are purchased and when they are sold. This is why active investing should be considered as a viable alternative to passive investment. I don’t have access to a very long time frame of stock market data, but I do have 30 or so years of FTSE data, so let’s say that we invest £100,000 for 10 years by buying an ETF in the FTSE100 index. I know this isn't de-risking across a number of asset classes by purchasing a number of different EFTs, but the logic still applies, if you will bear with me. Passive Investing I have chosen my example dates of best 10 years and worst 10 years as specific dates that demonstrate my point that active investing will (usually) out-perform passive investing. From a passive investing point of view, here is a graph of the FTSE with two purchase dates chosen (for maximum effect), to show the best and worst return you could receive. Note this ignores brokerage and other fees. In these time frames of data I have … These are contrived dates to illustrate the point, on how ineffective passive investing can be, depending if there is a bear/bull market and where you buy in the cycle. One obviously wouldn’t buy all their stocks in one tranche, but I’m just trying to illustrate the point. Active Investing Let’s consider now active investing. I use the following rules for selling and buying:- This is obviously a very simple technical trading system and I would not recommend using it to trade with, as it is overly simplistic and there are some flaws and inefficiencies in it. So, in my simulation, These beat the passive stock market profit for their respective dates. Summary Passive stock market investing is dependent upon the entry and exit prices on the dates the transactions are made and will trade regardless of market cycles. Active stock market trading or investing engages with the market using a set of criteria, which can change over time, but allows one’s investments to be in or out of the market at any point in time. My time frames were arbitrary, but with the logic applied (which is a very simple technical trading methodology), I would suggest that any 10 year time frame active investing would beat passive investing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is OkPay not allowed in the United States? ### Answer: The U.S. requires money transfer services to be licensed under 31 USC 5330 in addition to any applicable laws at the state level. According to multiple sources online, including the thread referenced by MD-Tech's answer, OkPay either cannot or will not get a license, so they are out. I dug on this a bit more because I thought it was interesting, and OkPay has other issues with U.S. and other regulators related to its interaction with Bitcoins, which themselves are a hot potato for regulation right now and may explain the licensing problem. It seems to also be facing regulatory pressure in other countries, by the way, so it's not strictly a problem they face in the U.S. Just for whatever reason, the problem is greater here. Some interesting summary points: With mounting pressure on online money exchanges from US regulators, payments processor OKPay has announced that it is suspending processing for all Bitcoin exchanges, including industry leader Mt. Gox. ... Earlier this month, the US Department of Homeland Security seized Mt. Gox's account with mobile payment processor Dwolla, on allegations that the account was in violation of US Code 18 USC § 1960 by operating an "unlicensed money transmitting business." Just where the Bitcoin market falls under US law is unclear, because the legality of Bitcoin transactions has yet to be tried in court and law enforcement has refused to comment on ongoing investigations, such as the Dwolla case. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/29/okpay_suspends_bitcoin_processing/ In March, the US Treasury said any firms dealing in the virtual currency would be considered "money services businesses" just like any other, which means they must hand over transaction information to the government and work to prevent money laundering. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/15/mt_gox_us_court/ In the UK, it apparently has also had trouble with banking partners (quoting a OkPay official regarding changing bank providers): The UK bank that we used before did not make a final decision on whether to handle transactions in favour of crypto-currencies or not. Therefore the compliance department of the bank asked us to restrict such transfers. This apparently allowed them to reverse a policy in the UK: OKPAY's policy shift comes just months after it stipulated that GBP users check a box, verifying that their funds would not be spent on cryptocurrency, a feature that further incited users. http://www.coindesk.com/okpay-gbp-bitcoin-transactions/ I hadn't heard of this company prior to your question, but having done some research, I tend to think that at least the part of this quote about language, attributed to a user, is true: OKPAY are quite paranoid about AML and another problem is that their support people seem to be very bad at English, so their replies are often hard to understand. Their support are also slow [sic]. However in my experience they are an honest company. I found at least one case where rumors that the entire company were going to shut down were traced back to a poorly translated message issued by the company. Again, I know only what I read just now about this company, but it looked like there were a few red flags - the problems with the US probably not being the most important. This type of service is probably part of the future, but I'm not sure that I'd send money through it now in its current state or organization and regulation. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is OkPay not allowed in the United States? ### Answer: according to their client services it is a licensing issue: Thread: OKpay didn't Accept USA clients? They do not elaborate but do suggest that they don't plan to fix that issue. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why is OkPay not allowed in the United States? ### Answer: If you read the link that MD-Tech provided, it actually indicates that the foreign companies (mostly banks) are choosing not to work with the United States in their latest answer, so it looks like it's not OkPay, but the financial companies that they use. On further research, the reason that this is banned is to prevent capital flight in the future. OkPay offers may ways to transfer funds in and out, such as traditional credit cards, like VISA and MasterCard, and other non-traditional ways, such as crypto-coins. Here is another example of how the US government is limiting what US consumers can do with their money. Apparently while no one was looking in 2010, they were able to pass some new restrictions. ###end

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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