Split (1)

train · 103k rows

text stringlengths 146 45.7k
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to rebalance a portfolio without moving money into losing investments ### Answer: Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to rebalance a portfolio without moving money into losing investments ### Answer: If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car? ### Answer: Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car? ### Answer: There needs to be more numbers with your choices, without those any answer is purely speculation. Assuming that India is much like the US, you are almost always better to go with a company leased car. That is if you are not responsible for the lease if your employment ends with the company. Here in the US companies typically reimburse, so tax free, their employees for about 50 cents per mile, or about 31 cents per kilometer. This barely covers the gas and insurance and falls way short when one includes deprecation and maintenance. So it is better to have the company to pick up all those costs. Borrowing money on a car is just plain dumb no matter what the interest rate. So I would stick with choice number 1 or 3 depending on the arrangement for the company leased car. The next question becomes how much you should spend for a car? I would say enough to keep you happy and safe, but not much more than that until you are wealthy. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car? ### Answer: Without knowing the terms of the company leased car, it's hard to know if that would be preferable to purchasing a car yourself. So I'll concentrate on the two purchase options - getting a loan or paying in full from savings. If the goal is simply to minimize the amount paid for this car, then paying the full cost up-front is best, because it avoids the financing and interest charges associated with a loan. However, the money you would pay for this car would come out of somewhere (your savings). If your savings were in an investment earning a risk-adjusted return rate of, say, 5% APY and the loan cost 1% APY, you'd have more money in the long run by keeping as much money in your savings as possible, and paying the loan as slowly as possible, because the return rate on your savings is higher. Those numbers are theoretical, of course. You have to make a decision based on your expectation of the performance of your investments, and on the cost of the loan. But depending on your risk tolerance and the loan terms available to you, a loan may well make sense. This is especially true when loans costs are subsidized by manufacturers, who often offer favorable financing on new cars to drive demand. But even bank loans on cars can be pretty inexpensive because the car is a form of collateral with predictable future value. And finally, you should consider tax treatment -- not usually a consideration in purchases of cars by consumers in the US, but can vary due to business use and certainly may be different in India. See also: How smart is it to really be 100% debt free? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it advisable to go for an auto loan if I can make the full payment for a new car? ### Answer: What percentage of your savings is the full car payment? If it's a significant chunk, then I'd finance some of the cost of the car in order to maintain liquidity. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: US Bank placing a hold on funds from my paycheck deposit: Why does that make sense? ### Answer: It is possible that they only do the hold on the first deposit from a given source. It is probably worth asking if they intend to do the hold on every paycheck or just the first one. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: US Bank placing a hold on funds from my paycheck deposit: Why does that make sense? ### Answer: First, congratulations on the paycheck! :-) On the holds: Is it possible that by allowing your account balance to go negative (into overdraft) that you triggered such treatment of your account? Perhaps the bank is being more cautious with your account since that happened. Just how long did you have their $150 on hold? ;-) Or, perhaps it's not you specifically but the bank is being more cautious due to credit conditions that have been prevalent these last years. Consider: allowing you to cash a check immediately – when it technically hasn't cleared yet – is a form of credit. Maybe it isn't you they don't trust well enough yet, but the company that issued the check? Checks bounce, and not by fault of the depositor. I once had a new account, years ago, and discovered a 5 day hold on deposits. The irony was it was a check drawn on the same bank! I called my banker and asked about it – and suggested I'd take my business back to my old bank. I was in the process of applying for a mortgage with the new bank. Holds were removed. But you may have some trouble with the "I'll walk" technique given the climate and your recent overdraft situation and no leverage – or if you do have some leverage, consider using it. But before you assume anything, I would, as JohnFx suggested, ask your bank about it. Pay your branch a visit in person and talk to the manager. Phone calls to customer service may be less successful. If it's not a big issue and more a minor technical policy one, the bank may remove the holds. If they won't, the manager ought to tell you why, and what you can do to solve it eventually. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Determining current value for real estate for inheritance purposes ### Answer: My question is... how is this new value determined? Does it go off of the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Determining current value for real estate for inheritance purposes ### Answer: There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Determining current value for real estate for inheritance purposes ### Answer: how is this new value determined? According to Publication 551: Inherited Property The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following. The FMV of the property at the date of the individual's death. The FMV on the alternate valuation date if the personal representative for the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. For information on the alternate valuation date, see the Instructions for Form 706. The value under the special-use valuation method for real property used in farming or a closely held business if chosen for estate tax purposes. This method is discussed later. FMV is Fair Market Value - which is the price that a willing buyer would pay for the property with reasonable knowledge of all the facts of the property. The rest generally apply to farmland or other special-purpose land where the amount of income it generates is not properly reflected in the market value. One or more real estate professionals will run "comps" that show you recent sales in the same area for similar houses to get a rough estimate of fair market value. Does it go off of the tax appraised value? Tax assessment may or may not be accurate depending on tax laws (e.g. limits to tax increases) and consistency with the actual market. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? That should not be necessary - another appraisal will likely be done as part of the estate process after death. One reason you might do one is if you are distributing different assets to different heirs, and you want to make sure that the estate is divided equitably. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer? ### Answer: A financial institution is not obligated to offer you a loan. They will only offer you a loan if they believe that they will make money off you. They use all the info available in order to determine if offering you a loan is profitable. In short, whether they offer you a loan, and the interest rate they charge for that loan, is based on a few things: How much does it cost the bank to borrow money? [aka: how much does the bank need to pay people who have savings accounts with them?]; How much does the bank need to spend in order to administer the loan? [ie: the loan officer's time, a little time for the IT guy who helps around the office, office space they are renting in order to allow the transaction to take place]; and How many people will 'default' and never be able to repay their loan? [ex: if 1 out of 100 people default on their loans, then every one of those 100 loans needs to be charged an extra 1% in order to recover the money the bank will lose on the person who defaults]. What we are mostly interested in here is #3: how likely are you to default? The bank determines that by determining your income, your assets, your current debts outstanding, your past history with payments (also called a credit score), and specifically to mortgages, how much the house is worth. If you don't have a long credit history, and because you don't have a long income history, and because you are putting <10% down on the condo [20% is often a good % to strive for, and paying less than that can often imply you will need mandatory mortgage insurance, depending on jurisdiction] the bank is a little more uncertain about your likelihood to pay. Banks don't like uncertainty, and they can deal with that uncertainty in two ways: (1) They can charge you a higher interest rate; OR (2) They can refuse you the loan. Now just because one bank refuses you a loan, doesn't mean all will - but being refused by one bank is probably a good indication that many / most institutions would refuse you, because they all use very similar analytical tools to determine your 'risk level'. If you are refused a loan, you can try again at another institution, or you can wait, save a larger down payment, and build your credit history by faithfully paying your credit card every month, paying your utilities, and making your car and rent payments on time. This will give the banks more comfort that you will have the ability to pay your mortgage every month, and a larger down payment will give them comfort that if the housing market dips, you won't owe more than the house is worth. My parting shot is this: If you are new in your career with no income history, be very careful about buying a property immediately, even if you get approved. A good rule of thumb is to only buy a property when you plan on living there for at least 5 years, or else you are likely to lose money overall, after factoring closing costs and maintenance fees. If you are refused a loan, that's probably a good sign that you aren't financially ready yet, but even if a bank approves you for a loan, you might not be ready yet either. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer? ### Answer: My credentials: I used to work on mortgages, about 5 years ago. I wasn't a loan officer (the salesman) or mortgage processor (the grunt who does the real work), but I reviewed their work fairly closely. So I'm not an absolute authority, but I have first-hand knowledge. Contrary to the accepted answer, yes the bank is obligated to offer you a loan - if you meet their qualifications. This may sound odd, and as though it's forcing a bank to give money when it doesn't want to, but there is good reason. Back in the 1950's through 1980's, banks tended to deny loans to African Americans who were able to buy nicer homes because the loan officer didn't quite 'feel' like they were capable of paying off an expensive house, even if they had the exact same history and income as a white person who did get approved. After several rounds of trying to fix this problem, the government finally decreed that the bank must have a set, written criteria by which it will approve or decline loans, and the interest rates provided. It can change that criteria, but those changes must apply to all new customers. Banks are allowed a bit of discretion to approve loans that they may normally decline, but must have a written reason (usually it's due to some relationship with the customer's business (this condition adds a lot of extra rules), or that customer has a massive family and all 11 other siblings have gotten loans from the same loan officer - random rare stuff that can be easily documented if/when the government asks). The bank has no discretion to decline a loan at will - I've seen 98-year-olds sign a 30-year mortgage, and the bank was overjoyed because it showed that they didn't discriminate against the elderly. The customer could be a crackhead, and the bank can't turn them down if their paperwork, credit, and income is good. The most the loan officer could do is process the loan slowly and hope the crackhead gets arrested before the bank spends any more money. The regulations for employees new to the workforce are a bit less wonderful, but the bank will want 30+ days of income history (30 days, NOT 4 weeks) if you have it. BUT, if you are a fresh new employee, they can do the loan using your written and signed job offer as proof of income. However, I discourage you from using this method to buy a house. You are much, much better off renting for a while and learning the local area before you shop for a house. It's too easy to buy a house without knowing the city, then discover that you have a hideously slow drive to work and are in the worst part of town. And, you may not like the company as much, or you may not be a good fit. It's not uncommon to leave a company within a year or two. You don't want a house that anchors you to one place while you need the freedom to explore career options. And consider this: banks love selling mortgages, but they hate holding them. They want to collect that $10,000 closing fee, they couldn't care less about the 4% interest trickling in over 30 years. Once they sign the mortgage, they try to sell it to investors who want to buy high-grade debt within a month. That sale gives them all the money back, so they can use it to sell another mortgage and collect another $10,000. If the bank has its way, it has offloaded your mortgage before you send the first payment to them. As a result, it's a horrible idea to buy a house unless you expect to live there at least 5 or 10 years, because the closing costs are so high. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer? ### Answer: I've been a mortgage broker for almost 20 years. I get people loans all of the time thru FHA and Conventional (Fannie Mae) with just one year work history; however, as a student, you must submit your school transcripts and your major needs to be in line with your current job. I'm closing a guy next week that has only been in his job for 8 months but he just graduated with his Masters in Biology. He's currently a wild life manager and the underwriter signed off on it easily. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer? ### Answer: I’ve been in the mortgage business for nearly 15 years. Your question is sort of multi-faceted and I’m surprised by some of these answers I’ve read! Anyway, I digress. Yes, you can be denied even if you have money for a down payment. One of the BIGGEST factors lenders are now required to take into account when approving mortgages now is a person’s “Ability to Repay.” Whether your traditional mortgages like Conventional, FHA, USDA, or VA loans, or even an “in-house” mortgage from a local bank —either way, the lender MUST be able to verify someone’s ability to repay. Your issue is that you won’t have any verifiable income until May. A couple people have answered correctly in that 1) if you have a firm offer letter that can be verified with the employer, and 2) you can use your education/college to substitute for a two year work history as long as you’re graduating with and working in the same line of work. Some programs require proof of 30 days of pay history once you actually start earning paychecks; some programs will use the offer letter as long as you will start earning paychecks within a certain number of days after the note date (basically when the payments start). Also I’m making the assumption that there is some sort of credit history that can be verified. Most lenders want at least a couple of accounts reporting a history just to show good use of credit and showing that you can manage your finances over a longer period of time. Just about every lender has some sort of minimum FICO score requirement. I hope this helps. If you have questions, just reply in a comment. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Could the loan officer deny me even if I have the money as a first time home buyer? ### Answer: There are loan options for those in your situation. It is very common. I am a licensed loan officer nmls 1301324 and have done many loans just like this. Your schooling is counted as your work history Contrary to popular belief. We want to write loans and guidelines are easing. Banks are a different story and their loan officers aren't licensed. If you talk to a bank you aren't getting an educated loan officer. They also have what are called overlays that make guidelines stricter. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: GnuCash: expense tracking/amounts left under limits ### Answer: Yes. The simplest option to track your spending over time is to familiarize yourself with the "Reports" menu on the toolbar. Take a look specifically at the "Reports > Income/Expense > Income Statement" report, which will sum up your income and spending over a time frame (defaults to the current year). In each report that you run, there is an "Options" button at the top of the screen. Open that and look on the "General" tab, you'll be able to set the time frame that the report displays (if you wanted to set it for the 2 week block since your last paycheck, for example). Other features you're going to want to familiarize yourself with are the Expense charts & statements, the "Cash Flow" report, and the "Budgeting" interface (which is relatively new), although there is a bit of a learning curve to using this last feature. Most of the good ideas when it comes to tracking your spending are independent of the software you're using, but can be augmented with a good financial tracking program. For example, in our household we have multiple credit cards which we pay in full every month. We selected our cards on specific benefits that they provide, such as one card which has a rotating category for cash back at certain business types. We keep that card set on restaurants and put all of our "eating out" expenses on that card. We have other cards for groceries, gas, etc. This makes it easy to see how much we've spent in a given category, and correlates well with the account structure in gnucash. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For a major expensive home renovation (e.g. addition, finished basement, or new kitchen) should one pay cash or finance with a loan? Would such a loan be “good” debt? ### Answer: Reasons to pay with cash Reasons to borrow Things to watch out for ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For a major expensive home renovation (e.g. addition, finished basement, or new kitchen) should one pay cash or finance with a loan? Would such a loan be “good” debt? ### Answer: Good debt is very close to an oxymoron. People say student loans are "good debt," but I beg to differ. The very same "good debt" that allowed me to get an education is the very same "bad debt" that doesn't allow me to take chances in my career - meaning, I would prefer to have a 'steady' job over starting a business. (That's my perogative, of course, but I am not willing to take that 'risk.' /endtangent @Harmanjd provided the two really good reason for using cash over borrowing. We have a tendency in this culture to find reasons to borrow. It is better for you to make a budget, based on what you want, and save up for it. Make a "dream list" for what you want, then add up the costs for everything. If that number makes your head hurt, start paring down on things you 'want.' Maybe you install just a wine cooler instead of a wine cooler and a beer tap, or vice-versa. And besides, if something comes up - you can always stop saving money for this project and deal with whatever came up and then resume saving when you're done. Or in the case of the kitchen, maybe you do it in stages: cabinets one year, countertops the next, flooring the year after that, and then the appliances last. You don't have to do it all at once. As someone who is working toward debt freedom, it feels nice whenever we have one less payment to budget for every month. Don't burden yourself to impress other people. Take your time, get bids for the things you can't (or won't) do yourself, and then make a decision that's best for your money. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For a major expensive home renovation (e.g. addition, finished basement, or new kitchen) should one pay cash or finance with a loan? Would such a loan be “good” debt? ### Answer: The number one reason to borrow is quite simple; when you have no other choice. The primary reason to do this is when renovations or additions must be made in a timeframe that precludes you being able to save enough money to pay cash. Harmanjd's example of a kid on the way with no space to put him is a very good hypothetical. Disaster recovery is another; insurance doesn't cover everything and can sometimes be slow to pay out, and even if the payoff will rebuild the house exactly the way it was, these situations are deceptively good opportunities to improve on what you had. Since you already have to call in the contractors to demo and rebuild, the cost to do that is sunk, and the incremental cost of improvements or even additional square footage is relatively minor. Other acceptable reasons to borrow are: When cost of capital is very cheap. A typical amortized HELOC is pretty expensive when paid on-schedule, but if you can pay it off very early (i.e. when you sell the home next month) or you get a good deal on the interest rate (a subsidized disaster recovery loan, perhaps; you have to be careful with these as they're not intended to turn a burnt-down hovel into a McMansion) the cost of borrowing can be acceptable even if you had cash savings for the project. You have other uses for the cash that can offset cost of borrowing. This generally requires the first point to be true as well, as it's a general rule that borrowing $10,000 costs you more than you would gain by investing $10,000, but there are situations in which the reverse can be true (if you have $10k in oil or major tech stocks right now, it would probably be a bad move to liquidate them for home improvements if you can get a HELOC at less than 6%). You can realize a net gain in home value from the reno. These situations are rare in cases of an already livable home; "flippers", which make their living on renovating homes for a profit, generally choose homes with obvious but easy-to-fix problems that depress home value because they look worse than they are. If you bought your home without any such problems, you probably paid something close to market value at the time, and so you're probably behind the curve. However, if you (or your family in the case of an estate transfer) have owned the home for a long time, long enough for things to fall WAY out of date, then you can catch up a lot of market value with one renovation, where if the home had had two or three renovations along the way a reno now wouldn't gain you as much value. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For a major expensive home renovation (e.g. addition, finished basement, or new kitchen) should one pay cash or finance with a loan? Would such a loan be “good” debt? ### Answer: The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For a major expensive home renovation (e.g. addition, finished basement, or new kitchen) should one pay cash or finance with a loan? Would such a loan be “good” debt? ### Answer: The reason for borrowing instead of paying cash for major renovations should be the same for the decision about whether to borrow or pay cash for the home itself. Over history, borrowing using low, tax-deductible interest while increasing your retirement contributions has always yielded higher returns than paying off mortgage principal over the long term. You should first determine how much you need to save for retirement, factor that into your budget, then borrow as much as needed (and can afford) to live at whatever level of home you decide is important to you. Using this same logic, if interest rates are low enough, it would behoove you to refinance with cash out leveraging the cash to use as additional retirement savings. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: Could it be done? Yes, it could, subject to local law. A variant of such an approach has been suggested for those countries experiencing collapse of demand. One might consider whether whether it applied to secured loans (such as mortgages), unsecured loans, or both; whether it would be capped at a certain absolute (say £100k) or proportional (first 50%) of each mortgage; whether it would cover first homes only, or all homes; and so on. These details would radically change the feasibility and consequences of any such intervention. See the related question: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/146/104 Such a policy of debt cancellation would have several consequences beyond initial stimulation of demand, that would need additional policies to deal with them. Inflation The resultant surge in demand would, in the absence of any other intervention, result in a massive surge in inflation. There are some interesting questions about whether this burst of inflation would be a one-off, or not. One could make an argument that as housing has become much more affordable (at least for home-owners), it would increase the downward pressure on wages, which would be in itself counter-inflationary in the medium-long term. Nevertheless, it would be injecting much more money into the economy than has been seen in QE to date, so the risks would be of extraordinarily high inflation, which might or might not get entrenched. In order to manage the short-term risk, and long-term inflation expectations, it might be necessary to incorporate a lot of tightening, either fiscal (higher taxes and/or lower public spending), or monetary: (higher interest rates, unwinding QE, new requirements for higher core capital for banks) Moral hazard There are risks of moral hazard for individuals: however, as a society, we were prepared to accept the moral hazard for financial institutions and their staff, so that may or may not be an issue: it is likely to be a question of long-term expectations. If the expectation is that this is at most a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, then the consequential risk from moral hazard ought to be lower. Excess profits to lenders Lenders will typically work on the basis of a certain proportion of defaults, so paying off all loans effectively gives them an artificial boost to their profits. Worsening balance of payments There is to a degree a prisoners' dilemma facing nations here. Pressing the reset-button on personal debt across many of the countries experiencing demand-collapse would benefit all of them. However, if just one such country were to do it alone, they alone would increase domestic demand, resulting in a large increase in imports, but no significant increase in exports. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: Just looking at the practicality: Because the total value of outstanding mortgages in the US is about $10 trillion, and the government can't afford it without printing enough money to cause hyperinflation. The cost of saving the banks was actually much less than the "hundreds of billions of dollars" that is quoted, because most of it was loans that have been or will be repaid, not cash payments. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: Interestingly, ancient Judaism and Christianity held a Jubilee year every 50 years in which all debts were forgive, slaves were freed, etc. "The land must not be sold permanently, for the land belongs to me. You are only foreigners, my tenant farmers." -Leviticus 25:23 Jubilee would more resemble "the government declares all mortgages and credit card debts void" with FDIC caping the payouts when banks fell into receivership, not simply "the government pays off all mortgages". Yet, it still demonstrates that primitive societies employed tools similar to what you describe. There is surely all manor of interesting analysis of the economic impacts of Jubilee by Jewish religious historians. You might even find arguments that communism was invented because Western Judeo-Christian societies abandoned Jubilee. As an aside, I'm surprised that nobody here directly discussed the velocity of money. If you wipe out a mortgage, you might convert a spender into a saver, especially during a recession, meaning you've injected slow money. Conversely, anyone too poor for a mortgage probably spends all their money, meaning giving them a job injects faster money. In addition, it's much cheaper to hire tons of poor people to do useful things, like repairing bridges. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: Government purchases of mortgages simply transfers the debt burden from households to the sovereign. Taxes pay sovereign debt (65% of whom are homeowners anyway). No debt has been restructured -- it's now paid via taxes instead of monthly mortgage payments -- and those paying include persons who responsibly avoided housing speculation. The U.S. has a debt-to-GDP ratio just shy of the critical point of 90%. Purchasing $10 trillion in mortgage debt (about a year of GDP) would put the U.S. on an inexorable path towards insolvency and inflation. There are all sorts of other risks (loss of a risk-free asset, moral hazard, nationalization of the housing industry, etc.) but this should make the point clear that it's not a good idea. There are only three ways to reduce debt: 1) default, 2) restructure, or 3) lower the real debt burden by de-valuing currency in which the debt is denominated. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: I think Energy and Mike point out the some serious issues but the prospects for the futures also need to be considered. If the banks no longer have those loans then they need to rebuild their income base that is wiped out by the payoff of their loans. They would be incentivised to make a large number of loans so that they could quickly reestablish their base so they can maintain profitability. This is likely to lead to more poor lending practices that lead to this location in the first place. The high earning heavily leveraged would benefit far more from this than the poor. A function of income is that as it increases the ability to leverage increases in a non lineal fashion. So single person making 250k a year(the benchmark set by the current administration) with a 2 million dollar mortgage(probably underwater currently) on a home would benefit much more than a family of 4 making 50k a year with a 100k mortgage. Assuming that government does pay off all mortages now people can sell of their now fully paid homes for less than their value, as its basically free money, leverage that money to move into a better home, so home values actually crash, in some areas as people sell them off cheap, people try to gamble on cheap houses(like we just saw), etc. It takes a market that is on the verge of recovery and stabilization and shakes it up. How long before it stabilizes again would be a matter of debate but I would not expect to see it in less than a decade. Business and the Economy thrives on stability and retreats from instability. So while this would appear to be an injection to the economy the chaos it creates would likely actually severely retard future economic growth. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why can't the government simply payoff everyone's mortgage to resolve the housing crisis? ### Answer: TARP was ~$475 billion of loans to institutions. Loans that are to be paid back, with interest (albeit very low interest). A significant percentage of the TARP loans have been (or will be) paid back. So, the final price tag of the TARP was only a few $billion (pretty low considering the scale of the program). There is ~$10 trillion in mortgage debt outstanding. That's a much higher price tag than TARP. Secondly, paying off the mortgages = no repayment to the government as there was with TARP. The initial price tag of your plan would be ~$10 trillion, instead of a few $billion. Furthermore how does a government with >$15 trillion in debt already come up with an extra ~$10 trillion to pay off people's mortgages? Should the government go deeper into debt? Print more money and trigger inflation? (Note: Some people like to talk about a "secret bailout" by the Fed, implying that the true cost of TARP was much higher than claimed by the government. The "secret bailout" was a series of short-term low/no interest loans to banks. Because they were loans, which were paid back, my point still stands.) Some other issues to consider: Remember that the principal balance of your mortgage is only a small portion of your payments to the bank. Over 30 years, you pay a lot of $$$ in interest to the bank (that's how banks make a profit). Banks are expecting that revenue, and it is factored into their financial projections. If those revenue streams suddenly disappeared, I expect it would majorly screw the up the financial industry. Many people bought houses during the real estate boom, when housing prices were inflated far beyond the "real" value of the house. Is it right to overpay for these houses? This rewards the banks for accepting the inflated value during the appraisal process. (Loan modification forces banks to accept the "real" value of the house.) The financial crisis was triggered by people buying houses they could not afford. Should they be rewarded with a free house for making poor financial decisions? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What are my options for this high interest student loan? ### Answer: There is no magic formula to this, quite simply: earn, cut expenses, and pay. It sounds like you can use a little bit of help in the earning area. While it sounds like you are career focused (which is great) what else can you do to earn? Can you start a low cost of entry side business? Examples would include tutoring, consulting, or even baby sitting. Can you work a part time job that is outside of your career field (waiter, gas station, etc...)? One thing that will help greatly is a written budget each and every month. Have a plan on where to spend your money. Then as you pay off a loan throw that money at the next one. No matter if you use the smallest loan first or highest interest rate first method if you do that your debt payments will "snowball", and you will gain momentum. I'd encourage you to keep good records and do projections. Keeping good records will give you hope when you begin to feel discouraged (it happens to just about everyone). Doing projections will give you goals to meet and then exceed. The wife and I had a lot of success using the cash envelope system and found that we almost always had money left over at the end of the pay cycle. For us that money went to pay off more debt. Do you contribute to a 401K? I'd cut that to at least the match, and if you want to get crazy cut it to zero. The main thing to know is that you can do it. I'd encourage you to pay off all your loans not just the high interests ones. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I buy and sell the same stock on the same day? ### Answer: Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer "margin", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a "margin account", you currently have a "cash account". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a "solution" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I buy and sell the same stock on the same day? ### Answer: You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I buy and sell the same stock on the same day? ### Answer: If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a "desk" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is "Flash Boys" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I buy and sell the same stock on the same day? ### Answer: you need minimum of 25k otherwise youll reach a limit. you have to wait 3 days for the sale to clear unless youre on margin. dont buy anything based on idiots on twitter or the internet. however, theres some good people to follow though that know what theyre doing. dont listen to this guy saying that etrade or those platforms arent fast enough. they all offer level 2 prices so i dont know what hes talking about. successful day traders arent buying and selling a stock every single day. theres not always something to buy and sell...unless youre just gambling, and in that case just go to the casino and lose your money there. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why does the Fed use PCE over CPI? ### Answer: Consumers aren't the only economic participants impacted by a change in the Fed rate.... Inflation has WIDE ranging implications from the future liabilities of pension funds to the ongoing cost of our national debt. It doesn't make sense to consider only consumer inflationary experience. PCE is considered because it relates to consumption, which includes things paid for by other entities, like employer healthcare spend. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why does the Fed use PCE over CPI? ### Answer: (the average person doesn't care nor are they affected by how much their employer spends in healthcare) It may be true that the average person doesn't care how much their employer spends on healthcare, but it's not true that we aren't affected. From an employer's perspective, healthcare, wages, and all other benefits are part of the cost of having an employee. When healthcare goes up, it increases the total employee cost. Employers can handle this in several ways. They could reduce the amount they give investors (as dividends, stock buybacks, etc.). But then the stock is worth less and they have to make up the money somewhere else. They could pass the expense on to customers. But then the loss in business can easily cost more than the revenue raised. They can cut wages or other benefits. Then the average person will start caring...and might get a different job. (I found this article saying that 12M households spend >=50% of income on rent, so I'm assuming that an even greater number spend more than the recommended 30%, which means rent should be weighted as high as it is in CPI.) According to the census, that's only about 10% of households. It also notes that 64.4% of households are owner-occupied. They don't pay rent. The CPI makes up a number called owner's equivalent rent for those households to get to the higher percentage. The CPI is intended for things like wages. This makes it a good choice for a cost of living adjustment, but it doesn't quite represent the overall economy. And for investments, it's the broader economy that matters. Household consumption is less important. What the Fed says. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why does the Fed use PCE over CPI? ### Answer: The reason is in your own question. The answer is simple. They use that code to tax the product otherwise it would just be out of pocket expenses. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to find out if a company is legit? ### Answer: It depends greatly from place to place, but nothing beats the Internet reviews' research. If you can't find anything digging slightly deeper than the impressive home page, then you probably should be worried. As it seems that you are. Specifically, I do these: @JohnFX mentions a valid point: check for physical presence. Check that the office address is a real office and not a PO box or residential; call the number and see who answers it (if you call several times during different hours and the same person answers - that's probably a one-man operation). But that doesn't always help because short-term renting an office is not all that hard and getting a call-centre outsourced to a third-world country doesn't cost all that much. It definitely helps if you're dealing with someone local, but if you're in Sweden and checking out a suspicious operation in Cyprus - this is definitely not enough. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to find out if a company is legit? ### Answer: If you are trying to weed out companies that are fronts for scams, one way is to look for a physical address that checks out with the phone book and a phone number posted on the site that connects you to an actual person. By itself this isn't a guarantee that the company is legit, but it will weed out a large number of fraudulent companies hiding behind PO boxes. That is, companies that defraud a lot of people don't usually make it very easy to track them down or contact them to complain or sue them. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: My previous and current employers both use Fidelity for 401(k). Does it make sense to rollover? ### Answer: I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: My previous and current employers both use Fidelity for 401(k). Does it make sense to rollover? ### Answer: I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it? ### Answer: Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally "out of sight - out of mind", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it? ### Answer: Fund your retirement accounts first. Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it? ### Answer: If I may echo the Roth comment - The Roth is a tax designation, not an end investment, so you still need to research and decide what's appropriate. I recommend the Roth for the long term investments, but keep in mind, even if you feel you may need to tap the Roth sooner than later, all deposits may be withdrawn at any time with no tax or penalty. Roth is great to store the emergency money for many if they aren't 100% sure they have enough cash to save for retirement. As you get further along, and see that you don't need it, change how it's invested to longer term, a mix of stocks (I prefer ETFs that mimic the S&P) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it? ### Answer: Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: For the first time in my life, I'm going to be making real money…what should I do with it? ### Answer: On the one hand, it's a great idea to open a Roth IRA now, once you've got the cash to contribute. It's a tax designation sounds like it would fit your meager earnings this year. The main reason to open one now rather than later is that some types of withdrawls require the account be aged 5 years. But you can also withdraw the amount you've contributed tax free any time. Student loans right now are pricey, so if you're carrying a balance at say 6.8 percent fixed you should pay that down ASAP. Beyond that, I'd keep the rest liquid for now. Having that kind of liquid cash is extremely reassuring, and many of the biggest returns on investment are going to be in your personal life. More fuel efficient vehicles, energy efficient appliances, computer backups, chest freezers and bulk meat purchases, etc. One example I see every six months is car insurance: I can pay for six months in full or I can pay a smaller monthly bill plus a small fee. That fee is well above current market rates. You see this everywhere; people searching for lower minimum payments rather than lower total costs. Save your money up and be the smart buyer. It's too damn expensive to be broke. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is a “Junk Bond”? ### Answer: A junk bond is, broadly, a bond with a non-negligible risk of default. ("Bond" ought to be defined elsewhere, but broadly it's a financial instrument you buy from a company or government, where they promise to pay you back the principal and some interest over time, on a particular schedule.) The name "junk" is a bit exaggerated: many of them are issued by respectable and reasonably stable businesses. junk bonds were required to do large leveraged buyouts. This means: the company issued fairly risky, fairly high-yield debt, to buy out equity holders. They have to pay a high rate on the debt because the company's now fairly highly geared (ie has a lot of debt relative to its value) and it may have to pay out a large fraction of its earnings as interest. What is a junk bond and how does it differ from a regular bond? It's only a matter of degree and nomenclature. A bond that has a credit rating below a particular level (eg S&P BBB-) is called junk, or more politely "non-investment grade" or "speculative". It's possible for an existing bond to be reclassified from one side to another, or for a single issuer to have different series some of which are more risky than others. The higher the perceived risk, the more interest the bond must pay offer in order to attract lenders. Why is there higher risk/chance of default? Well, why would a company be considered at higher risk of failing to repay its debt? Basically it comes down to doubt about the company's future earnings being sufficient to repay its debt, which could be for example: ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is a “Junk Bond”? ### Answer: From wikipedia: In finance, a high-yield bond (non-investment-grade bond, speculative-grade bond, or junk bond) is a bond that is rated below investment grade at the time of purchase. These bonds have a higher risk of default or other adverse credit events, but typically pay higher yields than better quality bonds in order to make them attractive to investors. In terms of your second question, you have the causality backwards. They are called junk bonds because they have a higher risk of default. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What is a “Junk Bond”? ### Answer: A "junk bond" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. "Normal" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on "normal" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the "junk" bonds will be impaired. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: When do companies typically announce stock splits? ### Answer: In 2005, Apple announced a split on Feb 11... CUPERTINO, California — February 11, 2005 — Apple® announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a two-for-one split of the Company’s common stock and a proportional increase in the number of Apple common shares authorized from 900 million to 1.8 billion. Each shareholder of record at the close of business on February 18, 2005 will receive one additional share for every outstanding share held on the record date, and trading will begin on a split-adjusted basis on February 28, 2005. ...one month after announcing earnings. CUPERTINO, California—January 12, 2005—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2005 first quarter ended December 25, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $295 million, or $.70 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $63 million, or $.17 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $3.49 billion, up 74 percent from the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 28.5 percent, up from 26.7 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarter’s revenue. I wouldn't expect Apple to offer another split, as it's become somewhat fashionable among tech companies to have high stock prices (see GOOG or NFLX or even BRK-A/BRK-B). Additionally, as a split does nothing to the underlying value of the company, it shouldn't affect your decision to purchase AAPL. (That said, it may change the perception of a stock as "cheap" or "expensive" per human psychology). So, to answer your question: companies will usually announce a stock split after releasing their financial results for the preceding fiscal year. Regardless of results, though, splits happen when the board decides it is advantageous to the company to split its stocks. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Precious metal trading a couple questions ### Answer: Limited Price is probably equivalent to the current par value of a "limit order". Markets move fast, and if the commodity is seeing some volatility in the buy and sell prices, if you place an ordinary buy order you may not get the price you were quoted. A "limit order" tells your broker or whomever or whatever is making the order on your behalf that you will pay no more than X yuan. While the market is below that price, the trader will attempt to get you the quantity you want, but if they can't get you your full order for an average price less than the limit, the whole thing is rolled back. You can set a limit at any price, but a limit order of 1 yuan for a pound of sterling silver will likely never be executed as long as the market itself is functioning. So, you are being provided with a "par value" that they can guarantee will be executed in the current market. Entrustment prices are probably prices offered to the managers of trust funds. A trust is simply a set of securities and/or cash which is placed under the nominal control of a third party, who then must in good faith attempt to fulfill the goals of the actual owner of the securities with regards to growth or retention of value. Trustees almost never speculate with the money they control, but when they do move money it's often a sizeble chunk (hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars instead of a few thousand dollars here and there). So, in return for the long-term holdings, large buys and sells, and thus the reduced cost of maintaining a business relationship with the broker, the broker may offer better prices to trust fund managers. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Precious metal trading a couple questions ### Answer: Correcting Keith's answer (you should have read about these details in the terms and conditions of your bank/broker): Entrustment orders are like a "soft" limit order and meaningless without a validity (which is typically between 1 and 5 days). If you buy silver at an entrustment price above market price, say x when the market offer is m, then parts of your order will likely be filled at the market price. For the remaining quantity there is now a limit, the bank/broker might fill your order over the next 5 days (or however long the validity is) at various prices, such that the overall average price does not exceed x. This is different to a limit order, as it allows the bank/broker to (partially) buy silver at higher prices than x as long as the overall averages is x or less. In a limit set-up you might be (partially) filled at market prices first, but if the market moves above x the bank/broker will not fill any remaining quantities of your order, so you might end up (after a day or 5 days) with a partially filled order. Also note that an entrustment price below the market price and with a short enough validity behaves like a limit price. The 4th order type is sort of an opposite-side limit price: A stop-buy means buy when the market offer quote goes above a certain price, a stop-sell means sell when the market bid quote goes below a certain price. Paired with the entrusment principle, this might mean that you buy/sell on average above/below the price you give. I don't know how big your orders are or will be but always keep in mind that not all of your order might be filled immediately, a so-called partial fill. This is particularly noteworthy when you're in a pro-rata market. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds? ### Answer: In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of "shares" of equity in the company. Usually, these "shares" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of "controlling interests". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For "private" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For "public" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about "dilution". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The "privately-held" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the "controlling interests" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, "common" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. "Preferred stock" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the "common" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to "class" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue "superstock" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a "superstock" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues "superstock", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available "common stock" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The "ideal" form of this is a "stock split"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds? ### Answer: A private company say has 100 shares with single owner Mr X, now it needs say 10,000/- to run the company, if they can get a price of say 1000 per share, then they just need to issue 10 additional shares, so now the total shares is 110 [100 older plus 10]. So now the owner's share in the company is around 91%. However if they can get a price of only Rs 200 per share, they need to create 50 more shares. So now the total shares is 150 [100 older plus 50]. So now Mr X's equity in his own company is down to 66%. While this may still be OK, if it continues and goes below 50%, there is chances that he [Original owner] will be thrown out ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds? ### Answer: Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price. Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares. That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company. And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How does a high share price benefit a company when it is raising funds? ### Answer: Share price is based on demand. Assuming the same amount of shares are made available for trade then stocks with a higher demand will have a higher price. So say a company has 1000 shares in total and that company needs to raise $100. They decide to sell 100 shares for $1 to raise their $100. If there is demand for 100 shares for at least $1 then they achieve their goal. But if the market decides the shares in this company are only worth 50 cents then the company only raises $50. So where do they get the other $50 they needed? Well one option is to sell another 100 shares. The dilution comes about because in the first scenario the company retains ownership of 900 or 90% of the equity. In the second scenario it retains ownership of only 800 shares or 80% of the equity. The benefit to the company and shareholders of a higher price is basically just math. Any multiple of shares times a higher price means there is more value to owning those shares. Therefore they can sell fewer shares to raise the same amount. A lot of starts up offer employees shares as part of their remuneration package because cash flow is typically tight when starting a new business. So if you're trying to attract the best and brightest it's easier to offer them shares if they are worth more than those of company with a similar opportunity down the road. Share price can also act as something of a credit score. In that a higher share price "may" reflect a more credit worthy company and therefore "may" make it easier for that company to obtain credit. All else being equal, it also makes it more expensive for a competitor to take over a company the higher the share price. So it can offer some defensive and offensive advantages. All ceteris paribus of course. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down? ### Answer: I am from Australia, so my answer is based on my experience over here, however it should be similar for the USA. Generally, what determines both the price of houses/apartments and the rents for them is supply and demand. When there is high demand and low supply prices (or rents) generally go up. When there is low demand and high supply prices (or rents) usually go down. What can sometimes happen when house prices go down, is that the demand can drop but so can supply. As the prices drop, developers will make less money on building new houses, so stop building new houses. Other developers can go bankrupt. As less people (including investors) are buying houses, and more people (including investors) try to sell their existing houses, there will be more people looking to rent and less rental properties available to rent. This produces a perfect storm of high demand and low supply of rental properties, causing rents to rise strongly. When the property prices start to go up again as demand increases, there is a shortfall of new properties being built (due to the developers not building during the downturn). At this time developers start to build again but there is a lag time before the new houses can be completed. This lack of supply puts more pressure on both house prices and rents to go up further. Until equilibrium between supply and demand is realised or an oversupply of rental properties exists in the market, rents will continue to rise. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down? ### Answer: At 5%, this means you expect rents to double every 14 years. I bought a condo style apartment 28 years ago, (sold a while back, by the way) and recently saw the going rate for rents has moved up from $525 to $750, after all this time. The rent hasn't increased four fold. If rents appear to be too low compared to the cost of buying the house, people tend to prefer to rent. On the flip side, if the rent can cover a mortgage and then some, there's strong motivation to buy, if not by the renters, then by investors who seek a high return from renting those houses, thereby pushing the price up. The price to rent ratio isn't fixed, it depends in part on interest rates, consumer sentiment, and banks willingness to lend. Similar to stock's P/E, there can be quite a range, but too far in either direction is a sign a correction is due. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down? ### Answer: Average rent rates will typically rise and fall, and are market-dependent just like real estate. In the short term, a collapse in housing like the one we saw in 2008 can induce a spike in rental costs as people walk away or get foreclosed on, and move back into apartments. That then tends to self-adjust, as the people who had been in the apartments find a deal on a foreclosed house and move out. However, one thing I've seen to be near-constant in the apartment business is that a landlord will offer you a deal to get in, then increase the rent on you from year to year until you get fed up and move. This is a big reason I didn't have the same address for two years in a row until I bought my house. The landlord is basically betting that you won't want to deal with the hassle of moving, and so will pay the higher rent rate, even if, when you do the math, it makes more sense to move even to maintain the same rent rate. Eventually though, you do get fed up, look around, find the next good deal, and move, "resetting" your rent rate. I have never, not once in my life, seen or heard of any landlord offering a drop in rent as a "loyalty" move to keep you from going somewhere else. It's considered part of the game; retailers will price match, but most service providers (landlords, but also utility providers) expect a large amount of "churn" in their customer base as people shop around. It averages out. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down? ### Answer: They are two different animals. When you rent you are purchasing a service. The landlord, as your service provider, has to make a profit, pay employees to do maintenance, and buy materials. The price of these things will increase with inflation, and that rolls into your rent price. Taxes also are passed to the tenant, and those tend to only go upward. Market forces of supply/demand will drive fluctuation of prices as well, as other posts have described. When you buy, you are purchasing just the asset - the home. This price will also be driven by supply/demand in the market, but don't try to compare it to buying a service. Cheers! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Why could rental costs for apartments/houses rise while buying prices can go up and down? ### Answer: Economically, you would say that purchased and rented real estate are not perfect substitutes--they are largely separate markets. Only a few people are able to easily switch from one to the other and that choice is sticky--for example, once you buy a house, prices would have to rise a lot for it to be worth it to sell it and move into an apartment. In both markets there is a supply and demand curve, but the slope of the demand curve for houses to purchase is much steeper than the demand curve for rentals. The market for new housing fluctuates rapidly because it requires a large change in housing prices to change the number of people looking to buy a house. Most decisions to buy a house are not driven by the state of the housing market. This describes a supply/demand graph with a very steep demand curve. Additionally, because of the leverage provided by mortgages, the demand for houses depends critically on relatively small changes in the interest rate and availability of loans. Thus the steep demand curve shifts all over the place as borrowing conditions change. On the other hand, apartment prices are more stable because people easily move from one apartment to another and people living in their parent's basements easily move into apartments if prices change. A small change in the price or quantity of rentals brings about reasonable response in quantity demanded. This is the situation where the demand curve is shallow. In addition, rentals are not tied to interest rates tightly, nor are they as strongly tied to economic conditions (in a recession, people avoid buying but renters continue to rent). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do bond interest rate risk premiums only compensate for the amount investors might lose? ### Answer: In answer to your last formulation, no. In a perfectly efficient market, different investors still have different risk tolerances (or utility functions). They're maximizing expected utility, not expected value. The portfolios that maximize expected utility for different risk preferences are different, and thus generally have different expected values. (Look up mean-variance utility for a simple-ish example.) Suppose you have log utility for money, u(x) = log(x), and your choice is to invest all of your money in either the risk-free bond or in the risky bond. In the risky bond, you have a positive probability of losing everything, achieving utility u(0) = -\infty. Your expected utility after purchase of the risky bond is: Pr(default)u(default) + (1-Pr(default))u(nominalValue). Since u(default)= -\infty, your expected utility is also negative infinity, and you would never make this investment. Instead you would purchase the risk-free bond. But another person might have linear utility, u(x) = x, and he would be indifferent between the risk-free and risky bonds at the prices you mention above and might therefore purchase some. (In fact you probably would have bid up the price of the risk-free bond, so that the other investor strictly prefers the risky one.) So two different investors' portfolios will have different expected returns, in general, because of their different risk preferences. Risk-averse investors get lower expected value. This should be very intuitive from portfolio theory in general: stocks have higher expected returns, but more variance. Risk-tolerant people can accept more stocks and more variance, risk-averse people purchase less stocks and more bonds. The more general question about risk premia requires an equilibrium price analysis, which requires assumptions about the distribution of risk preferences among other things. Maybe John Cochrane's book would help with that---I don't know anything about financial economics. I would think that in the setup above, if you have positive quantities of these two investor types, the risk-free bond will become more expensive, so that the risky one offers a higher expected return. This is the general thing that happens in portfolio theory. Anyway. I'm not a financial economist or anything. Here's a standard introduction to expected utility theory: http://web.stanford.edu/~jdlevin/Econ%20202/Uncertainty.pdf ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Do bond interest rate risk premiums only compensate for the amount investors might lose? ### Answer: [...] are all bonds priced in such a way so that they all return the same amount (on average), after accounting for risk? In other words, do risk premiums ONLY compensate for the amount investors might lose? No. GE might be able to issue a bond with lower yield than, say, a company from China with no previous records of its presence in the U.S. markets. A bond price not only contains the risk of default, but also encompasses the servicability of the bond by the issuer with a specific stream of income, location of main business, any specific terms and conditions in the prospectus, e.g.callable or not, insurances against default, etc. Else for the same payoff, why would you take a higher risk? The payoff of a higher risk (not only default, but term structure, e.g. 5 years or 10 years, coupon payments) bond is more, to compensate for the extra risk it entails for the bondholder. The yield of a high risk bond will always be higher than a bond with lower risk. If you travel back in time, to 2011-2012, you would see the yields on Greek bonds were in the range of 25-30%, to reflect the high risk of a Greek default. Some hedge funds made a killing by buying Greek bonds during the eurozone crisis. If you go through the Efficient frontier theory, your argument is a counter statement to it. Same with individual bonds, or a portfolio of bonds. You always want to be compensated for the risk you take. The higher the risk, the higher the compensation, and vice versa. When investors buy the bond at this price, they are essentially buying a "risk free" bond [...] Logically yes, but no it isn't, and you shouldn't make that assumption. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What should I do with my paper financial documents? ### Answer: Regarding your specific types: If you can't part with anything, sure, scan them. Also, there are lots of opportunities to sign up for eStatements with just about any financial provider. They want you to sign up for them, because it reduces their expenses. If you still like having paper around (I do admit that it's comforting in a way) then you can usually prune your paper a bit by statement (getting rid of T&C boilerplate, advertisements, etc.) or by consolidation (toss monthly when the quarterly consolidation statement arrives; toss the quarterly when the yearly arrives). ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What should I do with my paper financial documents? ### Answer: Here's my approach: As for Google Docs, I think that its safe enough for most people. If you in a profession that was subject to heavy regulatory scrutiny, of if you are cheating on your taxes, I would probably not use a cloud provider. Many providers will provide documents to government agencies without a subpoena or notice to you. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: What should I do with my paper financial documents? ### Answer: I won't add to the timelines, as I agree or don't care but my two cents are ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Making an offer on a property - go in at market price? ### Answer: Firstly, the agent doesn't work for you. He works for himself. It's in his interest not to get you a house at the lowest cost but to sell you a house. The higher the price the higher his commission is, or the higher the probability that the seller will sell it meaning less work for him. It depends on the market what price you should give. If I were you, I would do my own research about this area and not just trust the agent's assessment of it being a "seller's" market. Not sure where we are talking about but as you know, house prices have fallen a lot in the last few years and the economy isn't doing that well. It also depends on yourself. Every house is different and there's an emotional attachment to buying property. How much do you really want this house? Would it matter if you didn't get it? Are you prepared to keep looking? If this is your dream house, then maybe it is worth offering a bit more to ensure that you get it. If not, and you are prepared to wait, then yeah, I would shoot a little lower and see what they say. One thing I will say though is generally even if you give them a low offer, unless they're getting lots of other offers or they have to sell urgently, alot of the times the seller will come back and try to negotiate with you anyway. After all, it's business and they're there to get the highest price. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Making an offer on a property - go in at market price? ### Answer: From then on we've felt he was really pushy and rushing us to make a decision (we need to lock in a good rate, its a sellers market, it'll go fast, snooze loose, etc). This is the first reason for walking away. I understand that all those factors might be true but my question is: How do I know we made a good offer? I'm going to be blunt, here: You don't. You work out ahead of time what you will pay (ignore the agent) and you make the offer on the basis of your own research, research you spent months undertaking. The listed price on the location is $375,000 and according to our agent similar units over the last few years had sold for that amount. So our agent suggested making an offer at market price. According to the agent. I'm going to be blunt here, what do any of the real estate sites out there - that offer a wealth of information for free - indicate? If you don't know, then yet again you don't know if you made the right offer or not. Do some research now by yourself. I would be shocked if your offer was at the right level. Set your emotions aside - there are a gazillion houses out there. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Making an offer on a property - go in at market price? ### Answer: First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a "friend" or "roommate". "Spouses", "business partners", "domestic partners" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not "roommates". Going "halvsies" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two "friends" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't "own" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a "buyer's option". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts "first-time homebuyers", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Making an offer on a property - go in at market price? ### Answer: First piece of advice: fire your agent. A pushy agent is a bad agent. From what you've told us, he's actually given you poor advice regarding mortgage interest rates. Rates are already at historic lows. That and the precarious state of the world economy mean that further rate cuts are more likely in the near term. Second piece of advice: While more information on the real estate market you're in would help, going in at asking price is rarely a good idea. Sale prices from "the last few years" are not relevant to what you should pay, because the last few years include a financial crisis caused in large part by the bursting of a housing bubble. They could be even less relevant depending on your location because of a spike in foreclosures in certain areas of the U.S. There was already a ton of housing inventory before, so an increase due to foreclosures is going to depress prices further. Now that banks are finally practicing the due diligence they should have been all along, your ability to be pre-approved for large mortgage amount puts you in a strong position. Use a tool like Zillow or Redfin to see what properties in that area have sold for over the past six months. You should also be able to see a history of what prices the particular property you're interested in has been offered and/or sold at in the past. Also check and see how long the particular property you're interested in has been on the market. If it's been on the market more than 60-90 days, it's priced too high. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Making an offer on a property - go in at market price? ### Answer: Both of my primary home purchases were either at, or close to asking price. My first house was during the local seller's market in 2001-2002. There were waiting lines for open houses. In hindsight we bought more home than we needed at the time but that had nothing to do with offering asking price. It was the market for the type of property (location and features) at that time. My second house was a little after the peak in 2008. The value had come down quite a bit and the property was priced on the low side versus the comps. To this day my second house still appraises higher than what we paid for it even though it was at asking price. As a third example, my brother-in-law got into a bidding war on his first home purchase and ended up buying it for above asking price. This was normal for the houses in the area he was looking at. With real estate, like other people have said, it really is important to either know the area you are looking at or to get an agent you trust and have them explain their reasons for their offer strategy through the comps. Yes agents need to make money but the good ones have been in the business a while and also live off of repeat business when you sell your house or refer friends and family to them. Agents do a lot less work when it comes to selling by the way so they would love for you to come back to them when it's time to sell. If I'm not happy with the way things are going with my agent I would have a heart to heart with them and give them a chance to correct the relationship. I've spoken to a realtor friend in the past about getting out of buyer's contracts and he told me it's a lot easier as a buyer than a seller. The buyer has most of the power during the process. The seller just has what the buyer wants. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Is it possible to split taxation of funds earned from a crowdfunding campaign over multiple years? ### Answer: I think you should really start a limited company for this. It'll be a lot simpler to spread the income over multiple years if your business and you have completely separate identities. You should also consult an accountant, if only once to understand the basics of how to approach this. Having a limited company would also mean that if it has financial problems, you don't end up having to pay the debts yourself. With a separate company, you would keep any money raised within the company initially and only pay it to yourself as salary over the three years, so from an income tax point of view you'd only be taxed on it as you received it. The company would also pay for project expenses directly and there wouldn't be any income tax to pay on them at all. You would have to pay other taxes like VAT, but you could choose to register for VAT and then you'd be able to reclaim VAT on the company's expenses but would have to charge VAT to your customers. If you start making enough money (currently £82,000/year) you have to register for VAT whether you want to or not. The only slight complication might be that you could be subject to corporation tax on the surplus money in the first year because it might seem like a profit. However, given that you would presumably have promised something to the funders over a three year period, it should be possible to record your promises as a "liability" for "unearned income" in the company accounts. In effect you'd be saying "although there's still £60,000 in the bank, I have promised to spend it on the crowdfunded thing so it's not profit". Again you should consult an accountant at least over the basics of this. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit? ### Answer: Looking at your numbers, I would definitively consider selling the car, and use the public transportation instead. You could easily save $450 month, plus gas and maintenance. As you mentioned, public transportation will be only a fraction of this amount, so you might end up saving around $400 monthly. If you decide to keep the car, the amount that you will spent monthly is easily a payment for a brand-new car. What if, God forbid, for any kind of reason, you get a traffic ticket that can increase your insurance premium? What if the engine stops working, and you will need to spent thousands of dollars fixing the car? With this, and all of the other expenses pilled up, you might be unable to afford all this at some point. If you decide to sell the car, the money that you will save monthly can be put in a savings account (or in any other sort of "safe" investment instrument). In this way, if your situation changes where you need a car again, you will be able to easily afford a new car. Regarding your need to visit your friends on the suburbs every other weekend, I think you can just talk with them, and meet on places where public transportation is available, or ask them to pick you up in the nearest station to the suburbs. In conclusion, based on what you said, I do not think the "little" convenience that you get in owning the car outweighs the big savings that you get monthly, if you decide to sell the car. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit? ### Answer: So you will be saving $450 + price of commuting gas - cost of transportation + cost of commuting maintenance - the cost of recreational car rentals if decide to go without a car. For some people that cost is not enough to forego the convenience of owning a car. One factor you have not alluded too is your current financial goals. Are you attempting to live a spartan lifestyle in order to dramatically change your net worth? Give up the car. There really is more then the math you are presenting so the decision is very much based upon your behavior and your goals in life. It is very likely that owning the car will be more expensive, but it will also be less convenient. Is that cost great enough to forego the convenience? Only you can decide. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit? ### Answer: I've lived this decision, and from my "anecdata": do #3 I have been car-free since 2011 in a large United States city. I was one month into a new job on a rail line out in the suburbs, and facing a $3000 bill to pass state inspection (the brakes plus the emissions system). I live downtown. I use a combination of transit, a carshare service, and 1-2 day rentals from full service car rental businesses (who have desks at several downtown hotels walking distance from my house). I have not had a car insurance policy since 2011; the carshare includes this and I pay $15 per day for SLI from full service rentals. I routinely ask insurance salesmen to run a quote for a "named non-owner" policy, and would pull the trigger if the premium cost was $300/6 months, to replace the $15/day SLI. It's always quoted higher. In general, our trips have a marginal cost of $40-100. Sure, this can be somewhat discouraging. But we do it for shopping at a warehouse club, visiting parents and friends in the suburbs. Not every weekend, but pretty close. But with use of the various services ~1/weekend, it's come out to $2600 per year. I was in at least $3200 per year operating the car and often more, so there is room for unexpected trips or the occasional taxi ride in cash flow, not to mention the capital cost: I ground the blue book value of the car from $19000 down to $3600 in 11 years. Summary: Pull the trigger, do it :D ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Higher auto insurance costs: keep car or switch to public transit? ### Answer: I'm guessing Toronto? Sell the car! Use public transit. Save a ton of money. You can always rent a car for the day or weekend (or use a service like Uber) when necessary at a fraction of the cost of car ownership, and feel good about it! ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smartest Place to Put Tax Refund ### Answer: Congratulations on your graduation and salary. You are in a great career field (I know from experience.) As a background, I would feel pretty confident in your salary as demand for SE is pretty high right now. During my career there were times that demand was pretty to very low. Somehow I survived 2001 & 2002, but 2003 was a pretty rough year for me. Here is what I would do if I were you. Paying off the smallest loans first gives you some great "wind in the sails", and encourages you to keep going. I really like this approach despite being not the most mathematically efficient. I'd reduce my car loan payment back to $200/mo. and put that as the last one to pay off. With the tax refund, and any money left over, I pay off the student loans smallest to largest. I would also consider reducing your savings to something around the 1K->2k range, and use that to pay down debt. If you use your tax refund, and some of the savings you'd have like 34K left to pay off. Could you do that in like 14 months? I think you could depending on your other expenses. No more than 18 months, and if you really worked hard and picked up some work on the side maybe a year. That is what I would do. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Smartest Place to Put Tax Refund ### Answer: Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The "How do I pay my debt down?" and "How do I invest extra money?" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: So here are some of the risks of renting a property: Plus the "normal" risk of losing your job, health, etc., but those are going to be bad whether you had the rental or not, so those aren't really a factor. Can you beat the average gain of the S&P 500 over 10 years? Probably, but there's significant risk that something bad will happen that could cause the whole thing to come crashing down. How many months can you go without the rental income before you can't pay all three mortgages? Is that a risk you're willing to take for $5,000 per year or less? If the second home was paid for with cash, AND you could pay the first mortgage with your income, then you'd be in a much better situation to have a rental property. The fact that the property is significantly leveraged means that any unfortunate event could put you in a serious financial bind, and makes me say that you should sell the rental, get your first mortgage paid down as soon as possible, and start saving cash to buy rental property if that's what you want to invest in. I think we could go at least 24 months with no rental income Well that means that you have about $36k in an emergency fund, which makes me a little more comfortable with a rental, but that's still a LOT of debt spread across two houses. Another way to think about it: If you just had your main house with a $600k mortgage (and no HELOC), would you take out a $76k HELOC and buy the second house with a $200k mortgage? ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: If it was me, I would sell the house and use the proceeds to work on/pay off the second. You don't speak to your income, but it must be pretty darn healthy to convince someone to lend you ~$809K on two homes. Given this situation, I am not sure what income I would have to have to feel comfortable. I am thinking around 500K/year would start to make me feel okay, but I would probably want it higher than that. think I can rent out the 1st house for $1500, and after property management fees, take home about $435 per month. That is not including any additional taxes on that income, or deductions based on repair work, etc. So this is why. Given that your income is probably pretty high, would something less than $435 really move your net worth needle? No. It is worth the reduction in risk to give up that amount of "passive" income. Keeping the home opens you up to all kinds of risk. Your $435 per month could easily evaporate into something negative given taxes, likely rise in insurance rates and repairs. You have a great shovel to build wealth there is no reason to assume this kind of exposure. You will become wealthy if you invest and work to reduce your debt. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: I kind of hate piling on with another opinion, but this is too long for a comment. I did what you are thinking of doing, I would at least try renting it for a couple years so long as: The primary risks of renting are mostly related to unexpected costs and bad tenants, you've got a very healthy income, so as long as you maintain a nice emergency fund it doesn't sound like keeping this property as a rental will be too much risk. If the rental market is strong where your house is, then you have a better chance of avoiding bad tenants. I like to keep my rent a little lower than the max I think it could go for, to attract more applications and hopefully find someone who will be a good longer term tenant. Tax-free gains So long as you lived in your house 2 of the last 5 years, you can sell without paying capital gains tax on your profit, so you could try renting it for 2 years and then sell. That was a key for me when I converted my first house to a rental. I liked that flexibility, there's still the typical renting risks associated, but it's not a lifelong commitment. You can get 2 years of increased equity/appreciation tax-free, or you could find you enjoy it and keep it for the long haul. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: One piece of information you didn't mention is how much you paid for the original home. If you hold onto that home for too long you will have to pay capital gains on the difference between sale price and original price. This can be a TON of money, thousands of dollars easily. The rule is: If you lived in a home for 2 out of the past 5 years, you don't have to pay the capital gains tax. So if you just moved, you have 3 years to sell. Perhaps as a compromise you can try renting it for 3 years and then selling it a few months before the deadline. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable. You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill. Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it. Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: Another factor is, how far is your prospective rental property from where you live? vs. how comprehensive is your property management service? If you need to visit much or would simply like to keep an eye on it, a couple of hours drive could be a deal breaker. One more thought; would you be able to upgrade the property at a profit when it comes time to sell? If you have a realtor you trust he or she should be able to tell you if, say a $20k kitchen reno would reliably return more than $20k. It has a lot to do with the property's relative price position in the neighborhood. A cheaper home has more "upsell" room. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: If you can generate a higher ROI by renting than by cashing out and investing, then you should rent it out. Please consider your risk tolerance as well. It's always a personal decision whether to assume higher risk for a higher return. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: I don't see anything in this forum on the leverage aspect, so I'll toss that out for discussion. Using generic numbers, say you make a $10k down payment on a $100,000 house. The house appreciates 3% per year. First year, it's $103,000. Second year, $106090, third it's 109,272.70. (Assuming straight line appreciation.) End of three years, you've made $9,272.70 on your initial $10,000 investment, assuming you have managed the property well enough to have a neutral or positive cash flow. You can claim depreciation of the property over those rental years, which could help your tax situation. Of course, if you sell, closing costs will be a big factor. Plus... after three years, the dreaded capital gains tax jumps in as mentioned earlier, unless you do a 1031 exchange to defer it. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I sell a 2nd home, or rent it out? ### Answer: Heres what you need to know: This can be prevented by what a previous renter did to us. This is a smart, kind of a jerky way to do it but its VERY SMART, as long as your property is worth it, raise the rent higher. You must have a very nice, clean, everything working, house. You must be willing to have anything fixed. this is all to make up the high rent. You don't want the rent way out of proportion but just a bit higher. This is because, more than likely, people who are going to pay for a higher rent don't usually leave a mess, (higher class families vs lower class people living alone..) What might also help from the risk of damage is create a fee (also what my renter did) of any painting needed done like finger prints on the wall, nails in the wall, carpet stains, etc when the tenant is ready to move out. I would suggest a required professional carpet cleaning as well when lease is up. My renter was very nice, but very strict and did all these things. He has a few properties that are very nice middle class houses. Your home sounds like it could easily pass for this kind of business depending on where you live. If the tenant leaves before his lease is up you could charge a 1-2 month's rent to be able to find a new tenant. Be proactive on finding a tenant before the lease is up. This would be a bit of work to first set up and usually maintain, but its a good thing to think about. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How companies choose earnings release dates, & effect on Implied Volatility ### Answer: I can't speak authoritatively to your broader question about stocks in general, but in several years tracking AAPL closely, I can tell you that there's little apparent pattern to when their earnings call will be, or when it will be announced. What little I do know: - AAPL's calls tend to occur on a Tuesday more than any other day of the week - it's announced roughly a month in advance, but has been announced w/ less notice - it has a definite range of dates in which it occurs, typically somewhere in the 3rd week of the new quarter plus or minus a few days More broadly for #1: Given the underlying nature of what an option is, then yes, the day an earnings call date is announced could certainly influence the IV/price of options - but only for options that expire inside the "grey area" (~2 weeks long) window in which the call could potentially occur. Options expiring outside that grey area should experience little to no price change in reaction to the announcement of the date - unless the date was itself surprising, e.g. an earlier date would increase the premium on earlier dated options, a later date would increase the premium for later-dated options. As for #2: The exact date will probably always be a mystery, but the main factors are: - the historical pattern of earnings call dates (and announcements of those dates) which you can look up for any given company - when the company's quarter ends - potentially some influence in how long it takes the company to close out their books for the quarter (some types of businesses would be faster than others) - any special considerations for this particular quarter that affect reporting ability And finally: - a surprise of an earnings call occurring (substantively) later than usual is rarely going to be a good sign for the underlying security, and the expectation of catastrophe - while cratering the underlying - may also cause a disproportionate rise in IVs/prices due to fear ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? ### Answer: Short term: ask for a raise or look for a new job that pays more. Longer term: ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? ### Answer: It's a tough thing to do. You should look for a salaried position. Your freelance skills will be much better received, if you've worked for a couple of companies doing programming full time. Nothing beats working at it all day long for a few years. If you're set on being freelance, write some utility that will be popular, and submit it to Freshmeat.net. Now that's asking a lot. Those on the Web looking for programmers will most likely want you to work for 'sweat equity'. That is, a share in the company for you labour. In other words "FREE". I've done my share of those, and if you're just getting into this, you should steer away from them. You may hit the jackpot, but you won't sleep for the next few years ;-) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? ### Answer: You are paid hourly? I would have expected most IT people to be on salary Depends what your boss is like, he might be easy going and just give a raise if you ask for it. Failing that, do some self improvements, learn something new, take a course, maybe take some PHP certifications or even java certifications? Then at least you can say you're trying to move up In regards to pay, have a look on monster or some US job sites, at jobs similar to what you do and with the similar requirements, that should give you an idea of what you should be on. If all else fails, find a new job, that is always a good way of moving up Hope this helps ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? ### Answer: Start by going to Salary.com and figuring out what the range is for your location (could be quite wide). Then also look at job postings in your area and see if any of them mention remuneration (gov't jobs tend to do this). If possible go and ask other people in your field what they think the expected range of salary should be. Take all that data and create a range for your position. Then try and place yourself in that range based on your experience and skill set. Be honest. Compare that with your own pay. If your figures indicate you should be making significantly more, schedule a meeting with your boss (or wait for a yearly review if it's relatively soon) and lay out your findings. They can say: Be ready for curve balls like benefits, work environment and other "intangibles". If they say no and you still think your compensation is unfair, it's time to polish up your CV. The easiest way to get a job is to already have one. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How can I increase my hourly pay as a software developer? ### Answer: Most full time developer jobs in the US are paid on a salary basis rather than hourly unless you are a contractor. Also, the pay varies widely by region in the US with the West and East coast typically paying the most, but also having the highest cost of living. A site I really like for getting salary data by region and keyword for technical jobs is indeed.com. Here is a link to a chart on that site comparing salary trends for PHP and Joomla. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to negotiate when you have something to give back? ### Answer: NEVER combine the negotiations for trade-in of an old car and purchase of a new one (and/or financing), if you can avoid doing so. Dealers are very good at trading off one against the other to increase their total profit, and it's harder for you to walk away when you have to discard the whole thing. These are separate transactions, each of which can be done with other parties. Treat them as such. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: How to negotiate when you have something to give back? ### Answer: I don't think that there is a generic answer that will apply to this question across all goods. The answer depends on how the related businesses work, how much insight you have into the true value of the goods, and probably other things. Your car example is a good one that shows multiple options - There are dealers who will buy as a single transaction, sell as a single transaction, or do a simultaneous sell with trade-in. I had a hot tub once, on the other hand, where I could find people who would do a trade-in, but there was no dealer who would just buy my used tub. There's not much parallel between the car and the tub because the options available are very different. To the extent that there is a generic answer, I generally agree with the point in @keshlam's answer about trying to avoid entrapment, but I take a slightly different view. If you want to get your best deal, you need to have an idea going into the process of what you want in net and keep focused on meeting your goal. If for some reason, it's convenient for the dealer to "move money around" between the new car and the trade-in, I'm ok with that as long as I'm getting what I want out of the deal. If possible, I prefer to deal with both transactions at once because it's simpler. At the same time, I'm willing to remove the trade-in from the deal if I'm not getting what I want. (Threatening to do so can also give you some information about where the dealer really puts the value between the new car and trade-in since, if you threaten to pull the trade-in, the price on the car will probably change in response.) ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Slow destruction on co-signed property ### Answer: First off learn from this: Never cosign again. There are plenty of other "tales of woe" outlined on this site that started and ended similarly. Secondly do what you can to get off of the loan. First I'd go back to her dad and offer him $1000 to take you off the loan and sign over the car. Maybe go up to $3000 if you have that much cash. If that doesn't work go to the bank and offer them half of the loan balance to take you off. You can sign a personal loan for that amount (maybe). Whatever it takes to get off the loan. If she has a new BF offer him the same deal as the dad. Why do you have to do this? Because you owned an asset that was once valued at 13K and is valued at (probably) less than 4K. Given that you have a loan on it the leverage works against you causing you to lose more money. The goal now is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. I feel like the goal of your post was to make your ex-gf look bad. It's more important to do some self examination. If she was such a bad person why did you date her? Why did you enter a business transaction with her? I'd recommend seeking counseling on why you make such poor choices and to help you avoid them in the future. Along these lines I'd also examine your goals in life. If your desire is to be a wealthy person, then why would you borrow money to buy a car? Seek to imitate rich people to become rich. Picking the right friends and mates is an important part of this. If you do not have a desire to be a wealthy person what does it matter? Losing 13K over seven months is a small step in the "right" direction. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I scale down my 401k? ### Answer: Because stock markets don't always go up, sometimes they go down. Sometimes they go way down. Between 2007 and 2009 the S&P 500 lost over half its value. So if in 2007 you thought you had just enough to retire on, in 2009 you'd suddenly find you had only half of what you needed! Of course over the next few years, many of the stocks recovered value, but if you had retired in 2008 and depended on a 401k that consisted entirely of stocks, you'd have been forced to sell a bunch of stocks near the bottom of the market to cover your retirement living expenses. Bonds go up and down too, but usually not to the same extent as stocks, and ideally you aren't selling the bonds for your living expenses, just collecting the interest that's due you for the year. Of course, some companies and cities went bankrupt in the 2008 crisis too, and they stopped making interest payments. Another risk is that you may be forced to retire before you were actually planning to. As you age you are at increasing risk for medical problems that may force an early retirement. Many businesses coped with the 2008 recession by laying off their older workers who were earning higher salaries. It wasn't an easy environment for older workers to find jobs in, so many folks were forced into early retirement. Nothing is risk free, so you need to make an effort to understand what the risks are, and decide which ones you are comfortable with. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I scale down my 401k? ### Answer: the whole room basically jumped on me I really have an issue with this. Someone providing advice should offer data, and guidance. Not bully you or attack you. You offer 3 choices. And I see intelligent answers advising you against #1. But I don't believe these are the only choices. My 401(k) has an S&P fund, a short term bond fund, and about 8 other choices including foreign, small cap, etc. I may be mistaken, but I thought regulations forced more choices. From the 2 choices, S&P and short term bond, I can create a stock bond mix to my liking. With respect to the 2 answers here, I agree, 100% might not be wise, but 50% stock may be too little. Moving to such a conservative mix too young, and you'll see lower returns. I like your plan to shift more conservative as you approach retirement. Edit - in response to the disclosure of the fees - 1.18% for Aggressive, .96% for Moderate I wrote an article 5 years back, Are you 401(k)o'ed in which I discuss the level of fees that result in my suggestion to not deposit above the match. Clearly, any fee above .90% would quickly erode the average tax benefit one might expect. I also recommend you watch a PBS Frontline episode titled The Retirement Gamble It makes the point as well as I can, if not better. The benefit of a 401(k) aside from the match (which you should never pass up) is the ability to take advantage of the difference in your marginal tax rate at retirement vs when earned. For the typical taxpayer, this means working and taking those deposits at the 25% bracket, and in retirement, withdrawing at 15%. When you invest in a fund with a fee above 1%, you can see it will wipe out the difference over time. An investor can pay .05% for the VOO ETF, paying as much over an investing lifetime, say 50 years, as you will pay in just over 2 years. They jumped on you? People pushing funds with these fees should be in jail, not offering financial advice. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I scale down my 401k? ### Answer: IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense. ###end
Below is an instruction that describes a task. Write a response that appropriately completes the request. ### Question: Should I scale down my 401k? ### Answer: See if they offer a "Target Date" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually "exchange" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon. ###end

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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