Unless you are getting the loan from a loan shark, it is the most common case that each payment is applied to the interest accrued to date and the rest is applied towards reducing the principal.  So, assuming that fortnightly means 26 equally-spaced payments during the year, the interest accrued at the end of the first fortnight is $660,000 x (0.0575/26) = $1459.62 and so the principal is reduced by $2299.61 - $1459.62 = $839.99 For the next payment, the principal still owing at the beginning of that fortnight will be $660,000-$839.99 = $659,160.01 and the interest accrued will be $659,160.01 x (0.0575/26) = $1457.76 and so slightly more of the principal will be reduced than the $839.99 of the previous payment.  Lather, rinse, repeat until the loan is paid off which should occur at the end of 17.5 years (or after 455 biweekly payments). If the loan rate changes during this time (since you say that this is a variable-rate loan), the numbers quoted above will change too. And no, it is not the case that just %5.75 of the $2300 is interest, and the rest comes off the principle (sic)? Interest is computed on the principal amount still owed ($660,000 for starters and then decreasing fortnightly). not the loan payment amount. Edit  After playing around with a spreadsheet a bit, I found that if  payments are made every two weeks (14 days apart) rather than 26 equally spaced payments in one year as I used above, interest accrues at the rate of 5.75 x (14/365)% for the 14 days rather than at the rate of (5.75/26)% for the time between payments as I used above each 14 days, $2299.56 is paid as the biweekly mortgage payment instead of the $2299.61 stated by the OP, then 455 payments (slightly less than 17.5 calendar years when leap years are taken into account) will pay off the loan.  In fact, that 455-th payment should be reduced by 65 cents.  In view of rounding of fractional cents and the like, I doubt that it would be possible to have the last equal payment reduce the balance to exactly 0.


$34/month for doing 12 transactions or more.  If your time is worth less than about $2.50 per transaction, then it makes sense. I'd also check to see what happens if you miss and make only 11 transactions one month.  Do you lose a finger or something?  Or (less dramatically) do they take away your nice rate forever or slap you on the wrist financially? The fine print taketh away in these deals.  I'd be sure to see what it says.


it's kind of like a circular loop:  i think he would suggest identifying strategies/portfolio managers who have demonstrated outperformance in a persistent manner.  Thing is, that's also really hard to do.  I think empirically, MPT suffers when the market does. By diversifying, you'll only be down less. He's suggesting shooting for absolute returns -- no matter what the market does, he wants to see positive gains.  (a lot) easier said than done


You have asked this question but provide very little information. As others have stated, what country are you in? Was there a will or any other agreement?  Basically any estate will go to the beneficiaries once all debtors have been paid off. How this is done will largely depend on which country/state/region you are in and what documentation was in place at the time of death. You might want to check out this website for details on passing away without a will: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-estate-settled-if-theres-32442.html


Bid and ask prices of stocks change not just daily, but continuously.  They are, as the names suggest, what price people are asking for to be willing to sell their stock, and how much people are bidding to be willing to buy it at that moment. Your equation is accurate in theory, but doesn't actually apply.  The bid and ask prices are indicators of the value of the stock, but the only think you care about as a trader are what you actually pay and sell it for.  So regardless of the bid/ask the equation is: Since you cannot buy an index directly (index, like indicator) it doesn't make sense to discuss how much people are bidding or asking for it.  Like JoeTaxpayer said, you can buy (and therefore bid/ask) for ETFs and funds that attempt to track the value of the S&P 500.


"One thing to consider is that road wear is largely proportional to vehicle weight to the 4 power. ""Generalized Fourth Power Law"". This leads to a result that an 18 wheeler is roughly the equivalent of 9600 cars.  One consequence is that we can tax shipping weight, assuming some of it will go over road. Another option would be vehicle registration fees that are proportional to the weight of the vehicle. Yet another would be a tax on automotive battery packs (comparable to the lifetime energy output if it were gas).  Keep in mind that most local road construction is funded by property taxes, not gasoline. Next time you see a cyclist, thank them for paying for the road and doing several hundred times less damage to it than your car. :)"


Don't do debt.  After a few years (I forget how many) the bad history will have rolled off, but by then you will probably have no desire to go back into debt again. If you do want to build up a credit score, then at that point it's essentially the same as starting from scratch.  However, from personal experience, once you've lived debt free for a few years you never want to get back on the debt wheel again. A credit score is the output of a behavioral model that indicates the chances that a bank will earn money from your business. Do things that earn the banks money and you will have a high credit score.


There's nothing wrong with your reasoning except that you expect the tax laws to make perfect sense. More often than not they don't. I suggest getting in touch with a professional tax preparer (preferably with a CPA or EA designation), who will be able to understand the issue, including the relevant portions of the French-US tax treaty, and explain it to you. You will probably also need to do some reporting in France, so get a professional advice from a French tax professional as well. So, in my tax return, can I say that I had no US revenue at all during   this whole year? I doubt it.


"In almost all cases, gifts from employers are considered taxable compensation, based on the employer-employee nature of the relationship. Furthermore, cash gifts are always considered to be intended as wages, regardless of how you receive the money. Furthermore, regardless of whether you expect to receive anything in return (such as contractual consideration) or whether the amounts are large enough to be declared as taxable personal gifts, it is likely that the IRS would consider these payments to be ""disguised wages"", as these payments would fail several tests that the IRS uses to determine whether benefits provided by the employer are non-taxable, including: I'd recommend reviewing IRS publication 535 here, as well as publication 15-B here for more on what constitutes taxable wages & benefits. It seems very unlikely to me that you could make a persuasive legal defense in which you claimed to be working full-time for $60.00 per year and just happened to be receiving large personal gifts of $130,000.00. In my opinion it seems much more likely that these payments would be found to be taxable wages for services rendered."


"Relax im not picking on you, I just think its hilarious that people actually think saying ""my college's student investment fund valued this stock"" holds any legitimacy. Also, if i was back office I wouldnt be an IB analyst would I? So your dig at me doesnt make any sense."


because the market price for good investment advice isn't that low. investment advice is subject to market pricing just like any other good or service.  if you are good enough at investing that you seek increased volatility opportunities, you will have no trouble finding investors willing to give you a share of the upside without any of the downside risk.


"> Milano says that Hellie’s poor oversight of the remodeling job caused costs to spiral. She ended up spending $5 million, though the home is worth no more than $3 million.    This sounds like lack of oversight on Milano's part.   Who gives their so-called ""business manager"" handle your home improvement project?   Why can't you go to an architecture & construction company yourself? How hard is that?"


What is the corporate structure? Your partnership agreement or LLC operating agreement should dictate how you approach this.


"There are a number of bona fide reasons to consider here. If there is a cost to discharging a security packet, or a mortgage, it may not be convenient if we are advanced in the repayment schedule. Early exit fees may apply, or the interest may be ""pre-determined"". As a rule of thumb, when we are talking about rates above 10% p.a. then arrangements should be short (bridging finance - keep it short and charge 'em heaps), and for personal arrangements, small."


It depends how deep in the money it is, compared to the dividend.  Even an in the money call has some time premium. As the call holder, if I exercise instead of selling the call, I am trading the potential for a dividend, which I won't receive, for getting that time premium back by selling.  Given the above, you'll notice a slight distortion in options pricing as a dividend date approaches, as the option will reflect not just the time premium, but the fact that exercising with grab the dividend.  Edit to address your comment - $10 stock, $9 strike, 50 cent div. If the option price is high, say $2, because there's a year till expiration, exercising makes no sense. If it's just $1.10, I gain 40 cents by exercising and selling after the dividend.


There are two methods of doing this Pulling out the money and paying the penalty if any, and going on your way. Having the Roth IRA own the business, and being an employee. If you go with the second choice, you should read more about it on this question.


"If you start an LLC with you as the sole member it will be considered a disregarded entity.  This basically means that you have the protection of being a company, but all your revenues will go on your personal tax return and be taxed at whatever rate your personal rate calculates to based on your situation.  Now here is the good stuff.  If you file Form 2553 you can change your sole member LLC to file as an S Corp.  Once you have done this it changes the game on how you can pay out what your company makes.  You will need to employ yourself and give a ""reasonable"" salary.  This will be reported to the IRS and you will file your normal tax returns and they will be taxed based on your situation. Now as the sole member you can then pay yourself ""distribution to share holders"" from your account and this money is not subject to normal fica and social security tax (check with your tax guy) and MAKE SURE to document correctly.  The other thing is that on that same form you can elect to have a different fiscal year than the standard calendar IRS tax year.  This means that you could then take part of profits in one tax year and part in another so that you don't bump yourself into another tax bracket.  Example:  You cut a deal and the company makes 100,000 in profit that you want to take as a distribution.  If you wrote yourself a check for all of it then it could put you into another tax bracket.  If your fiscal year were to end say on sept 30 and you cut the deal before that date then you could write say 50,000 this year and then on jan 1 write the other check."


Check out Khan Academy if you get a chance - they have a large suite of finance/capital market video clips that cover a lot of the basics of financial theory in short, manageable clips that might be suitable for someone in high school.


"With 40% of your take-home available, you have a golden opportunity here. Actually two, and the second builds out easily from the first.  Golden Opportunity # 1: Layoff Immunity Ok, not really immunity. Most people don't think of themselves getting laid off, and don't prepare. Of course it may not happen to you, but it can. It's happened to me twice. The layoff itself is an emotional burden (getting rejected is hard), but then you're suddenly faced with a gut-wrenching, ""how am I gonna pay the rent????"" If you have no savings, it's terrifying. Put yourself in that spot. Imagine that tomorrow, you're out of a job. For how many months could you pay your expenses with the money you have? Three months? One? Not even that?  How about shooting for 12 months? It's really, really comforting to be able to say: ""I don't have to worry about it for a year"". 12 months saved up gives you emotional and financial stability, and it gives you options -- you don't have to take the first job that comes along.  Now, saving 12 months of expenses is huge. But, you're in the wonderful spot where you can save 40% of your income. It would only take 2.5 years to save up a year's worth of income! But, actually, it's better than that. Because your 12-month Layoff Immunity fund doesn't have to include the amount for retirement, or taxes, or that 40% we're talking about. Your expenses are less than 60% of take-home -- you'd only need 12 months of that. So, you could have a fully funded 12-Month Layoff Immunity Fund only in a year and a half!  Golden Opportunity #2: Freedom Fund Do you like your Job? Would you still do it, if you didn't need the money? If so, great. But if not, why not get yourself into a position where you don't need it? That is, build up enough money from saving and investing to where you can pay your expenses - forever - from your investments. The number to keep in mind is 25. Figure out your annual expenses, and multiply it by 25. That's the amount you'd need to never need a job again. (That works out to a 4% withdrawal rate, adjusting for inflation every year, with a low risk of running out of money. It's a rule of thumb, but smart people doing a lot of math worked it out.) Here you keep saving and investing that 40% in solid mutual funds in a regular, taxable account. Between your savings and the compounding returns off the investments, you could easily have a fully funded ""Freedom Fund"" by the time you're 50. In fact, by 45 isn't unreasonable.  It could be even better. If you live in that high-rent area because of the job, and wouldn't mind living were the rents are lower once you quit, your target amount would be lower. Between that, working dedicatedly toward this goal, and maybe a little luck, you might even be able to do this by age 40.  Final Thoughts There are other things you could put that money toward, like a house, of course. The key take-away here, is to save it, and invest it.  You're in a unique position of being able to do that with 40% of your income. That's fabulous! But don't think it's the norm. Most people can't save that much, and, once you lose the ability to save that much, it's very difficult to get it back. Expenses creep in, lifestyle ""wants"" become ""needs"", and so on. If you get into the habit of spending it, it's very difficult to shrink your lifestyle back down - down to what right now you're perfectly comfortable with. So, spend some time figuring out what you want out of life -- and in the mean time, sock that 40% away."


"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions.  It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings.   You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA.  And then, within each of those...  You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible.  If someone says otherwise, take your money and run.  They are a shady financial ""advisor"" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end.  Not to mention any names.  E.J.    If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all.  Or, just ask here.  But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer.  And read John Bogle's book.   They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts.  Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds.  The difference is taxation.  Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however  Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000.  Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income.  If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower ""capital gains"" tax rate.  With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000.  Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000.  If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300).  With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000.  When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes.  Provided you followed the rules.   You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return.  You won't keep up with the market.  Bonds.  Low return but usually quite safe.  Individual stocks.  Good luck.   Managed mutual funds.  You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and  good social connections.  He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an ""expense ratio"", which is a total loss to you.  The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts.  But he's not 1.5% better!  Index funds.  These just shrug and buy every stock on the market.  There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week.  As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%.    If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account.  This problem gets fixed in ETF's.  Index ETF's.  These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks.  Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes.  If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these.  Too many other options to get into here."


As an addition to Chris Rea's excellent answer, these tender offers are sometimes made specifically to cast doubt on the current market price. For instance, a large public company that contracts with a smaller supplier or service company, also public, might make a tender offer below market price. The market will look at this price and the business relationship, and wonder what the larger company knows about the smaller one that they don't. Now, what happens when investors lose confidence in a stock? They sell it, supply goes up, demand goes down, and the price drops. The company making the tender offer can then get its shares either way; directly via the offer, or on the open market. This is, however, usually not successful beyond the very short term, and typically only works because the company making a tender offer is the 800-pound gorilla, which can dictate its own terms with practically anyone else it meets. Such offers are also very closely watched by the SEC; if there's any hint that the larger company is acting in a predatory manner, or that its management is using the power and information of the company to profit themselves, the strategy will backfire as the larger company finds itself the target of SEC and DoJ legal proceedings.


"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match.  Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years.  So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say ""don't take a 401(k) loan."" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix.  The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?"


"Professional investors managing large investment portfolios for ""institutions"" -- a college, a museum, a charitable organization, et cetera. I'm not sure whether those managing investments for a business are considered institutional investors or not. The common factor tends to be large to immense portfolios (let's call it $100M and up, just for discussion) and concern with preserving that wealth.  Having that much money to work with allows some investment strategies that don't make sense for smaller investors, and makes some others impractical to impossible. These folks can make mistakes too; Madoff burned a lot of charities when his scam collapsed."


I'm a little confused by your question to be honest. It sounds like you haven't sold it to him, but you have a verbal arrangement for him to use the car like it's his. I'm going to assume that's the case for this answer. This is incredibly risky. If you've got the car on credit and he stops paying, or you guys break up... you will be liable for continuing to make payments! If the loan is in your name, it's your responsibility. Edited. The credit is yours. If he decides to stop paying, you're a little stuck.


The idea behind investing in index funds is that you will not under perform the market but also at the same time not over perform against the market either. It is meant for those (majority of the investing population) who do not or cannot invest more time in actively researching different investment options. So even considering for a moment that the yields on the index funds will drop significantly in the future, since the fund is supposed to be replication of the whole market itself, the market too can be assumed to be giving significantly lower future yields. In my opinion the question that you ask is confusing/contradictory because, its like pegging the fund performance to an avg and then asking if it will be higher or lower in the future. But rather its always going to be exactly the average, even if the absolute yields turn higher or lower


Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were:  engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is   taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back.


"This answer is applicable to the US.  Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well.   The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the ""market"" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of  the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on  the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all.  If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and  the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will  be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too.  So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income),  what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on  just $1375-$1200 =$175  (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up ""buying a dividend"".  If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share  on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded,  and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously."


I wouldn't recommend trying to chase a good return on this money.  I'd just put it into a savings account of some sort.  If you can get a better interest rate with an online account, then feel free to do that.  I'd recommend using this money to pay for as much of college out of pocket as you can.  The more student loans you can avoid, the better. As @John Bensin said, trying to make money in the stock market in such a short time is too risky.  For this money, you want to preserve the principal to pay for school, or to pay down your loans when you get out. If you find you have more money than you need to finish paying for school, then I'd suggest setting some aside for an emergency fund, setting aside enough to pay your loans off when you're out of school, saving for future purchases (house, car, etc), and then start investing (maybe for retirement in a Roth IRA or something like that).


For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations.  A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.


"You hit on the biggest advantage of keeping things out of tax-advantaged accounts: Easier access to the money. It hurts to take money out of a 401(k) early.  It may hurt more in the future.  (Do you think the reason the 10% penalty is there in order to protect you from yourself?)  It also may be converted into a vehicle besides what you have it in now, due to a ""national liquidity crisis."" You have plenty in tax-advantaged accounts, IMO."


If the 'gratuity' is a payment from your previous Indian company made when you left them, then the US tax system will treat it exactly the same as wages paid by your previous company. Whether or not you need to pay taxes on your wages and gratuity will depend on whether your are considered resident in the US for tax purposes for this financial year. It is likely that you will be. Assuming you are, then the US requires that you pay tax on all income, wherever it is earned in the world. You will need to fill in a tax return and declare both your gratuity and your wages in India for that year.  India and the US have a 'double tax agreement', which means essentially that you won't be taxed twice if you have already paid tax on the gratuity and wages in India. But you do have to declare them.


Sarasota Short Sale Lawyer are experts in contract law.  If you are experiencing unmanageable debt issues such as Short Sale, Foreclosure, or Real Estate, it is important to realize you are not alone and that there are viable options for getting a new financial lease on life that works in the long run.


"With a gross income of $ 95,000 per year, and a net savings rate of over $ 18,000 per year, a budget of $ 3,600 per year for automobile interest and depreciation is not irresponsible. But poor car choices, poor car maintenance habits, and driving habits that risk totalling cars are irresponsible.  Also, not fully understanding a lease deal is irresponsible. The ""great lease deal"" might be encouraging you to make a different ""poor car choice"" than you made last time.  A ""great deal"" on a bad car is not really a great deal.  Also, depending on the contract and your driving habits, you might have a surprising cost at the end of the lease."


"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."


The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about.  Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited.  Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example.


"There absolutely is a specific model that makes this so popular with so many credit card companies, and that model is ""per transaction fees"". Card companies also receive cost-sharing incentives from certain merchants. There is also a psychological reasoning as an additional incentive. When you want to accept credit cards as a source of payment as a business, you generally have three kinds of fees to pay: monthly/yearly subscription fees, percentage of transaction fee, and per transaction fee.  The subscription fees can be waived and sometimes are expressed as a ""minimum cost"", so the business pays a certain amount whether you actually have people use credit cards or not. Many of these fees don't actually make it to the credit card companies, as they just pay the service providers and middle-men processing companies. The percentage of transaction fee means that the business accepting payment via credit card must pay a percentage usually ranging from 1-3% of the total transactions they accept. So if they get paid $10,000 a month by customers in the form of credit cards, the business pays out $100-300 a month to the credit card processor - a good portion of which will make it back to the credit card issuing company, and is a major source of income for them. The per transaction fee means that every time a transaction is run involving a card, a set fee is incurred by the business (which is commonly anywhere from $0.05 to $0.30 per transaction). If that $10,000 a month business mentioned previously had 10 customers paying $1,000 each at $0.10 a transaction, that's only $1 in fees to the credit card processors/companies. But if instead that business was a grocery store with an average transaction of $40, that's $25 in fees.  This system means that if you are a credit card company and want to encourage people to make a specific kind of purchase, you should encourage purchases that people make many times for relatively small amounts of money. In a perfect world you'd want them to buy $1 bottles of water 5 times a day with their credit card. If the card company had 50,000 card holders doing this, at the end of 1 year the company would have $91,250,000 spread across 91,250,000 transactions. The card company might reasonably make $0.05 per transaction and %1 of the purchase total. The Get Rewarded For Drinking More campaign might earn the card company $912,500 in percentage fees and over $4.5 million in transaction fees. Yet the company would only have to pay 3% in rewards from the percentage fees, or $2.7 million, back to customers. If the card company had encouraged using your credit card for large once-yearly purchases, they would actually pay out more money in rewards than they collect in card-use fees. Yet by encouraging people to make small transactions very often the card company earns a nice net-income even if absolutely every customer pays their balance in full, on time, and pays no annual/monthly fees for their card - which obviously does not happen in the real world. No wonder companies try so hard to encourage you to use your card all the time! For card companies to make real money they need you to use your credit card. As discussed above, the more often you use the card the better (for them), and there can be a built-in preference for small repeated transactions. But no matter what the size of transaction, they can't make the big bucks if you don't use the card at all! Selling your personal information isn't as profitable if they don't have in-depth info on you to sell, either. So how do they get you to make that plastic sing? Gas and groceries are a habit. Most people buy one or the other at least once a weak, and a very large number of us make such purchases multiple times a week. Some people even make such purchases multiple times a day! So how do people pay for such transactions? The goal of the card companies is to have you use their product to pay as much as possible. If you pay for something regularly you'll keep that card in your wallet with you, rather than it getting lost in a drawer at home. So the card companies want you to use your card as a matter of habit, too. If you use a card to buy for gas and groceries, why wouldn't you use it for other things too? Lunch, dinner, buying online? If the card company pays out more and makes less for large, less-regular purchases, then the ideal for them is to have you use the card for small regular purchase and yet still have you use the card for larger infrequent purchases even if you get reduced/no rewards. What better way to achieve all these goals than to offer special rewards on gas and groceries? And because it's not a one-time purchase, you aren't so likely to game the system; no getting that special 5% cash-back card, booking your once-per-decade dream vacation, then paying it off and cancelling it soon after - which would actually make the card company lose money on the deal. In the end, credit card companies as a whole have a business model that almost universally prefers customers who use their products regularly and preferably for small amounts a maximum number of times. They want to reduce their expenses (like rewards paid out) while maximizing their revenue. They haven't figured out a better way to do all of this so well as to encourage people to use their cards for gas and groceries - everything else seems like a losing proposition in comparison. The only time this preference differs is when they can avoid paying some or all of the cost of rewards, such as when the merchants themselves honor the rewards in exchange for reduced or zero payment from the card companies. So if you use an airline card that seems to give you 10% back in airline rewards? Well, that's probably a great deal for the card company if the airline provides that reward at their own expense to try to boost business. The card company keeps the transaction-related fees and pays out almost nothing in rewards - the perfect offer (for them)!  And this assumes no shenanigans like black-out periods, ""not valid with any other offers"" rewards like on cars where only a fool pays full MSRP (and sometimes the rewards are tagged in this sort of way, like not valid on sale/clearance items, etc), expiring rewards, the fact that they know not everyone uses their rewards, annual fees that are greater than the rewards you'll actually be obtaining after accounting for all the other issues, etc. And credit card industries are known for their shenanigans!"


While I don't disagree with the other answers as far as CD laddering goes (at least in principle), three months CDs are currently getting much lower rates than money market accounts, at least according to http://www.bankrate.com.  A savings account is also more liquid than CDs. Bonds are another option, and they can generally be liquidated quickly on the secondary market.  However, they can go down in value if interest rates rise (actually this is true of CDs as well--there is a secondary market, though  I believe only for brokerage CDs?). Bottom line, A high yield savings account is likely your best best.  As others noted, you should think of your emergency fund as savings, not investment.


You're aware there's no such thing as a cheap house in Jersey right? Rental values are listed in price per DAY to make them look less scary.   Also, no, you couldn't. You pay tax in the country you are resident in and the States don't equate property ownership to residency; neither does HMRC.   Interesting side note, in Jersey's neighbour Guernsey you can own a house but not legally be allowed to live in it due to the dual property market.


"It's ""projected"" to go up, until the underwriting banks decide enough time has passed for them to stop pretending they believe in their unrealistically optimistic scenario and start slashing target price estimates by 40%. So a few weeks..."


Have a look at swift codes website, but on wikipedia, there seems to be some variation in the interpretation of the standard. Broadly, it should be that a swift code refers to a particular branch, but it is possible that there is a cost associated with running a swift code, so some banks may prefer to share swift codes across branches. You should check and confirm.


"I am strongly skeptical of this.  In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that ""simulates"" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1.  I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a ""day"", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart.  Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples:    If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N).  What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified."


"Will the bank be taxed on the $x received through selling the   collateral? Why do you care? They will, of course, although their basis will be different. It is of no concern for you. What is your concern is that the write-off of the loan is taxed as ordinary income (as opposed to capital gains when you sell the stocks) for you. So when the bank seizes the stocks, they will also report to the IRS that they gave you the amount of money that you owed them (which they will ""give you"" and then put it on the account of the loan). So you get taxed on that amount as income. In addition, you will be taxed on the gains on the stocks, as giving them to the bank is considered a sale. So you may actually find yourself in a situation where you'd be paying taxes twice, once capital gains, and once as ordinary income, on the same money. I would strongly advise against this. If it is a real situation and not a hypothetical question - get a professional tax advice. I'm not a professional, talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state."


Okay, I went through a similar situation when my mother died in March of this year. The estate still needs to go into probate. Especially if there was a will. And when you do this, your husband will be named as the executor. Then what he will need to do is produce both of their death certificates to the bank, have the account closed, and open an estate account with both of their names on it. Their debts & anything like this should be paid from this account as well. Then what you can do is endorse the check as the executor and deposit it into this account. After all debts are paid, the money can be disbursed to the beneficiaries (your husband). Basically, as long as they didn't have any huge debts to pay, he will see the money again. It just may be a couple of months. And you will have to pay some filing fees.


"Oftentimes, the lender (the owner of the security) is not explicitly involved in the lending transaction. Let's say the broker is holding a long-term position of 1MM shares from Client A. It is common for Client A's agreement with Broker A to include a clause that allows the broker to lend out the 1MM shares for its own profit (""rehypothecation""). Client A may be compensated for this in some form (e.g. baked into their financing rates), but they do not receive any compensation that is directly tied to lending activities. You also have securities lending agents that lend securities for an explicit fee. For example, the borrower's broker may not have sufficient inventory, in which case they would need to find a third-party lending agent. This happens both on-demand as well as for a fixed-terms (typically a large basket of securities). SLB (securities lending and borrowing) is a business in its own right.  I'm not sure I follow your follow-up question but oftentimes there is no restriction that prevents the broker from lending out shares ""for a very short time"". Unless there is a transaction-based fee though, the number of times you lend shares does not affect ""pocketing the interest"" since interest accrues as a function of time."


If I sell a covered call, on stock I own 100%, there is no risk of a margin call. The stock goes to zero, I'm still not ask to send in more money. But, if bought on margin, margin rules apply.  A naked put would require you to be able to buy the stock if put to you. As the price of the stock drops, you still need to be able to buy it at the put strike price.  Mark to market is just an expression describing how your positions are considered each day.


Whatever you do, don't take your retirement savings to Vegas. Second, you should also consider investment expenses. Your investments profit after the managers pay themselves. Get the lowest expense ratio mutual funds you can. Third, most active managers do not beat the market. Index funds are your friends. They also tend to have the lower expense ratios.


I understand you're trying to ask a narrow question, but you're basically asking whether you should time the market.  You can find tons of books saying you shouldn't try it, and tons more confirming that you can.  Both will have data and anecdotes to back them up.  So I'll give you my own opinion. Market timing, especially in a macro sense, is a zero-sum game.  Your first thought should be: I'm smarter than the average person; the average person is an idiot.  However, remember that a whole lot of the money in the market is not controlled by idiots.  You really need to ask yourself if you can compete with people who get paid to spend 12 hours a day trying to beat the market. Stick with a mid-range strategy for now.  Your convictions aren't and shouldn't be strong enough at the moment to do otherwise.  But, if you can't resist, I say go ahead and do what you feel.  Regardless of what you do, your returns over the next 3 years won't be life changing.  In the meantime, learn as much as you can about investing, and keep a journal of your investment activity to keep yourself honest.


You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks.  That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor.  If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.


"So basically, the bar has been lowered due to the fact that so many people don't qualify for credit. The medical debt issue is one thing, but the fact that only 28% of home purchases these days are first time home buyers instead of 40% says more about our unaffordable higher educational system, labor market and people's ability to earn decent income than it does about credit being ""too tight"".  If anything this is a loosening of standards since the banks have no alternative in order to drum up new sales. They're 12% off the mark and they're finding ways to close the gap. Wages probably won't get better, so they're better off accepting lower quality customers and rolling the dice on their ability to pay off debts over the life of the loans they issue.  Sounding familiar?"


You should be careful about mingling your personal money and that of the business, even if it is a sole prop right now.  It is a good habit to keep separate business and personal bank/credit accounts just so that when you change to an LLC, it is simpler for you to separate what belongs to the company and what is yours personally.  What you're doing makes it more difficult (although only marginally so) to itemize business deductions that were paid with an ostensibly personal credit account.  The better habit to get into now is keeping that distinct separation between personal and business. That being said, there's nothing illegal in what you're doing, but it would make an accountant cringe, that's for sure. (chuckle) Hope this helps. Good luck!


Is your credit card spending on things outside the categories listed in your question? I generally don't put credit card expenditures in their own category of spending because I'm buying things like gas and groceries, etc. I track all spending whether from my checking account (bill autopay) or credit card account as spending in budget categories, and I just transfer money from my checking account to my credit card account to cover anything that was spent there during the previous month.


No. But you are not splitting the 401(k), the judge is. There is no provision for an employee to simply request funds to give to the ex-spouse. But there is a QDRO, a qualified domestic relations order whereby a judge orders this to occur. The lawyers will be aware of the loans, as will the judge, and will take that into account when splitting the 401(k). Depending on what other money the Ex has, he make be required to pay the loans back, partially, or in full.  No one can guess what will happen. The judge will take all aspects of your finances and current earnings into account.


Yes, you are the proprietor of the business and your SSN is listed on Schedule C. The information on Schedule C is for your unincorporated business as a contractor; it is a sole proprietorship. You might choose to do this business under your own name e.g. Tim Taylor (getting paid with checks made out to Tim Taylor) or a modified name such as Tim the Tool Man Taylor (this is often referred to as DBA - Doing Business as), under a business name such as Tool Time etc. with business address being your home address or separate premises, and checking accounts to match etc. and all that is what the IRS wants to know about on Schedule C.  Information about the company that paid you is not listed on Schedule C.


No fees: Write a check. Deposit it into the other bank.


I have no idea what you're talking about, but for context, Amazon employee badges are blue. The point is that as far as employment status is concerned they're more or less on par with corporate.  (There are lots of caveats to the above statement but the general case holds.)


"Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned ""intangibles"" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far."


Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund


There is no requirement to open a company. You can work as freelancer. You need to report income and file returns. If your income is more than exempt limit, pay taxes. Apply for a PAN number if you don't have one yet.


"Check the transactions costs, ""Desk fees"" and the whole structure, sit down with them and list everything.  Then make a spreadsheet and calculate all the stuff they hit you with and figure out how good you have to be in trading to make money, (in terms of accuracy and p/l)."


The only thing the book advises to do is to start an LLC that invests in real estate, then deduct everything you do as a business expense related to investing in real estate. Going on a vacation to Hawaii?  Deduct it, you were checking out real estate.  And so on and so forth.


The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy.  So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000.  You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss.  You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500,  and sell it for $9,000.  Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500,  then sell it for $9,500.  Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis,  and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.


Many mortgages have a clause saying the bank will not sell the loan. You are acting like this is unheard of, but it is a standard checkbox on most bank's mortgages, where they either mark that they can sell it or they mark that they won't. So, it is common enough for it to be on their standard forms. (There are many sources of funding for banks for mortgages that explicitly prevent them from selling loans)


"The loan-to-value ratio (LTV Ratio) is a lending risk assessment ratio that financial institutions and others lenders examine before approving a mortgage. It sounds like your lender has a 60% requirement. Remember the home is the collateral for the loan.  If you stop making payments, they can take the house back from you.  That number is less than 100% to accommodate changing market prices, the cost of foreclosure, repairing and reselling the home.  They may be a safety factor built in depending on the home's location.   If you want to buy a $1.8 million dollar home you will have to come up with 40% down payment.  That down payment is what reduces the risk for the lender.  So no, there is no way to cheat that. Think about the transaction from the view of the lender.   Note: in some areas, you can still get a loan if you don't have the required down payment.  You just have to pay a monthly mortgage insurance.  It's expensive but that works for many home buyers.  A separate insurance company offers a policy that helps protect the lender when there isn't enough deposit paid. Update:  Er, no.  Keep it simple.  The bank will only loan you money if it has collateral for the loan. They've built in a hefty safety margin to protect them in case you quit paying them your monthly payments.  If you want to spend the money on something else, that would work as long as you provide collateral to protect the lender.  You mention borrowing money for some other purpose then buying a home.  That would be fine, but you will have to come up with some collateral that protect the lender. If you wanted to buy a new business, the bank would first ask for an appraisal of the value of the assets of the business.  That could be applied to the collateral safety net for the lender.  If you wanted to buy a business that had little appraisal value, then the bank would require more collateral from you in other forms.  Say you wanted to borrow the money for an expensive operation or cosmetic surgery. In that case there is no collateral value in the operation. You can't sell anything from the surgery to anybody to recover costs. The money is spent and gone.  Before the bank would loan you any money for such a surgery, they would require you to provide upfront collateral.  (in this case if you were to borrow $60,000 for surgery, the bank would require $100,000 worth of collateral to protect their interest in the loan.) You borrow money, then you pay it back at a regular interval at an agreed upon rate and schedule.  Same thing for borrowing money for the stock market or a winning horse at the horse race.  A lender will require a hard asset as collateral before making you a loan...   Yes I know you have a good tip on a winning horse,and you are bound to double your money, but that's not the way it works from a lender's point of view.    It sounds like you are trying to game the system by playing on words.  I will say quit using the ""40% to 60%"" phrase.  That is just confusing.  The bank's loan to value is reported as a single number (in this case 60%)  For every $6000 you want to borrow, you have to provide an asset worth $10,000 as a safety guarantee for the loan. If you want to borrow money for the purchase of a home, you will need to meet that 60% safety requirement.  If you want to borrow $1,000,000 cash for something besides a home, then you will have to provide something with a retail value of $1,666,667 as equity. I think the best way for you to answer your own question is for you to pretend to be the banker, then examine the proposal from the banker's viewpoint. Will the banker alway have enough collateral for whatever it is you are asking to borrow? If you don't yet have that equity, and you need a loan for something besides a home, you can always save your money until you do have enough equity.  Comment One. I thought that most lenders had a 75% or 80% loan to value ratio. The 60% number seems pretty low.  That could indicate you may be a high risk borrower, or possibly that lender is not the best for you.  Have you tried other lenders?  It's definitely worth shopping around for different lenders.   Comment Two. I will say, it almost sounds like you aren't being entirely honest with us here.  No way someone with a monthly income who can afford a $1.8 Million home would be asking questions like this.  I get that English probably isn't your first language, but still.  The other thing is: If you are truly buying a $1.8 Million dollar home your real estate agent would be helping you find a lender that will work with you.  They would be HIGHLY motivated to see this sale happen.   All of your questions could be answered in ten minutes with a visit to your local bank (or any bank for that matter.)  When you add up the costs and taxes and insurance on a 30 fixed loan, you'd have a monthly mortgage payment of nearly $10,500 a month or more.  Can you really afford that on your monthly income?"


What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value).  Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss.  These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction).  As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.


A lender lends money to a person or institution. A creditor is owed money by the person or institution. Many times they are equal. But if you owe money to somebody they are a creditor. You could have paid with a check, but it bounced. Or you contracted them for a service, and then never paid for that service.  Yes technically a creditor did offer a short term that was supposed to be paid within X days of being billed.  Sometimes a creditor works the other way also. You gave a deposit to company X for them to remodel your kitchen. They never start the job. They now owe you a refund of your deposit. You are now a creditor.


"Well, it's not even just about dealing with a half day. There is literally a message on every single data feed that states ""this is it for this trading session"". Why the hell would you consider any data after that as something you'd process?"


"Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not ""reasonable"" to expect.  $200 per month, is $2,400 per year.  $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year.  You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year.  I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money.  I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value.  Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely."


Wow the collateral totally eliminates the purpose of the swap for B, to have a consistent steady cash flow and stable expenses.   It probably wouldn't be worth a broker's time unless it was in the millions.  They should invent interest rate swaps for the mass market. I'm patenting that!


"Based on past case law, a check made payable to qualified charity and delivered (e.g., placed in the mail on 12/31 would count as delivered as it is out of the hands of the donor) would fall under the ""constructive receipt doctrine"". However, for non-charitable gifts (e.g., gifts to family members) it is the date the check is cashed (honored by the receiving bank).  This is important as the annual gift exclusion is just that ""Annual"".  Therefore, if I gift my child $14,000 by writing a check on 12/31/2014 but they deposit it on 1/3/2015 then I have used my annual gift exclusion for 2015 and not 2014.  This means I could not gift them anything further in 2015. BTW the annual gift amount is for ALL gifts cash and non-cash.  Most people don't seem to realize this.  If I give $14,000 of cash to my child and then also give them Christmas gifts with a value of $1,000 I have exceeded my annual gift exclusion to that child.  Usually there are ways around this issue as I can give $14,000 to each and every person I want and if married my spouse can do the same.  This allows us to give $14,000 from each of us to each child plus $14,000 from each of us to their spouse if married and $14,000 from each of us to each of their children if they have any."


Starting and running a business in the US is actually a lot less complicated than most people think. You mention incorporation, but a corporation (or even an S-Corp) isn't generally the best entity to start a business with . Most likely you are going to want to form an LLC instead this will provide you with liability protection while minimizing your paperwork and taxes. The cost for maintaining an LLC is relatively cheap $50-$1000 a year depending on your state and you can file the paperwork to form it yourself or pay an attorney to do it for you. Generally I would avoid the snake oil salesman that pitch specific out of state LLCs (Nevada, Delaware etc..) unless you have a specific reason or intend on doing business in the state.  With the LLC or a Corporation you need to make sure you maintain separate finances. If you use the LLC funds to pay personal expenses you run the risk of loosing the liability protection afforded by the LLC (piercing the corporate veil). With a single member LLC you can file as a pass through entity and your LLC income would pass through to your federal return and taxes aren't any more complicated than putting your business income on your personal return like you do now. If you have employees things get more complex and it is really easiest to use a payroll service to process state and federal tax with holding.  Once your business picks up you will want to file quarterly tax payments in order to avoid an under payment penalty.  Generally, most taxpayers will avoid the under payment penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller. Even if you get hit by the penalty it is only 10% of the amount of tax you didn't pay in time. If you are selling a service such writing one off projects you should be able to avoid having to collect and remit sales tax, but this is going to be very state specific. If you are selling software you will have to deal with sales tax assuming your state has a sales tax. One more thing to look at is some cities require a business license in order to operate a business within city limits so it would also be a good idea to check with your city to find out if you need a business license.


Can't pretend to be an expert in construction or real estate but I'm pretty sure that you can approach the people you know and pay them on a per job basis. I'm pretty sure finding other workers on a per job basis will be easy. I wouldn't say its common but its not uncommon either.


"In the end, all these fees hurt the average consumer, since the merchant ultimately passes cost to consumer. Savvy consumers can stay at par or get ahead, if they put in the effort. It's a pain, but I rotate between 4 cards depending on time of year and type of purchase, to optimize cash back. My cards are:  1. 5% rewards card on certain categories, rotates each quarter 2. 2% travel/dining card (fee card, but I travel a bunch so it's worth it, no foreign transaction fees) 3. 1.5% rewards card for everything else 4. Debit card (swiped as a CC) for small purchases (i.e. lunches) at credit union for ""enhanced"" high interest checking account, requiring certain # swipes/month. This alone returns to me ~$800/yr."


"The mortgage broker makes money from the mortgage originator, and from closing fees.  All the broker does is the grunt work, mostly paperwork and credit record evaluation.  But there's a lot of it.  They make their money by navigating the morass of regulations (federal, state, local) and finding you the best mortgage from the mortgage lender(s) they represent.  They don't have any capital involved in the deal.  Just sweat equity. Mortgage originator is the one who put up the capital for you to borrow.  They're the ones who get most of the payments you send in.  They sell the mortgage if they receive what they consider an equitable offer.  Keep in mind that the mortgage, from the lender's point of view, is made up of three parts.  The capital expenditure, the collateral, and the cashflow.  The present value of the cashflow at the rate of the loan is greater than the capital expenditure.  Any offer between those two numbers is 'in the money' for them, and the next owner, assuming no default.  But the collateral makes up for the chance of default, to an extent. There's also a mortgage servicing company in many cases.  This doesn't have to be the current holder of the loan. Study ""the time value of money"", and pay close attention to the parts about present value, future value, and cash flow and how to compare these."


AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer:   To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules.   Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:


So you have to be a science and math whiz to research the most important financial decisions of your life?  Business and Comp. Sci. Did finance. Left to go into education and entrepreneurship. 10+ years working with high risk youth in higher education.  Voted for Obama.  But go ahead and be intellectually lazy and put everyone in a nice box. Makes thinking easy for you I suppose.  Voted for Obama.


"good vs ""bad"" debt in the context of that post. At least in the UK this can be a good tactic to reduce the cost of credit card debt. Some things to consider"


Determining how much you should budget to spend on any area of your budget is one of those hard topics to find good information about.  Part of the problem is that everyone has different priorities and needs, and incomes and expenses vary greatly depending upon where you live and your career choices. The best thing you can do is track your spending for 1-3 months (you can use the envelope system if you need to, to track and control how much you spend on miscellaneous things like lunches, coffee, etc).  The precision is important, though you probably dont need to measure to the penny, however you should capture all the areas where you spend money (even if you later gather them into more broad areas). Split your spending into three broad areas, and try to limit the spending for each of those areas to the stated percentages (adjust for your preferences). You state net Income $2600, and you stated you have $1731 of known expenses, so you are spending another $870 on groceries, debt payments, restaurants, unplanned expenses, and emergencies. Essentials (50%,$1300) - rent, transportation, food, utilites Total $972+groceries (you probably spend $400-600 on groceries, so your essentials are higher by $100-300 than you can afford.  You should try to cut your electricity usage ($30-50), and you may be able to find cheaper car insurance (save $20). Financial Priorities (30%,$780) - savings, debt payments Total $376, nearly 15% before you pay for credit cards and savings.  Please focus on paying off your debts (credit cards, window loan, student loans).  You are spending almost 10% of your income on student loans, and you cannot afford much other debt. Lifestyle (20%,$520) Total $279, over 10% of your income on communications!  Please try to cut cellphone, and DirectTV costs, at least until you have reduced debt. Since you have internet, your wife could use a voip provider (vonage, ooma telo, etc) or get an ipod touch and use skype or similar, at least until you get out of debt. You might consider trying to find a way to earn extra money, until you have paid off either the loan for windows, your credit card debt, or one of your student loans.


"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP).  That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself.  Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out.  As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends.  You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due.  All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that.  It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start.  It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant.  I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this.  Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?).  A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information.  I just searched on ""ETF DRIP"" to check it out."


Though non-resident Indians (NRIs) earn their living abroad, their obligation to file tax returns in India doesn't end. With the July 31 deadline for filing returns barely a month away, NRIs need to gear up to file their return if they have income in India that exceeds the basic exemption limit. How to Determine tax residency status: An NRI first needs to determine his tax residency status, that is, whether he falls in the category of resident or non-resident Indian (NRI) for tax purposes. While there may be no ambiguity regarding the status of an NRI who has lived abroad for a long time, those who have moved abroad recently or have returned to India after a long stay abroad need to ascertain their residency status properly.


With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine.  You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter.  Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.


The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio.  So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%.  Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth.  The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return  is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as  in money-market funds.  In fact, some money market funds which  found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio  fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price.  Personally,  I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.


The sentiment is because between closing and opening a lot can happen, and between opening and the time your order actually goes through, even more can happen.  An after-hours trade has an extra amount of short-term risk attached; the price of a stock at the opening bell is technically the same as its price as of the closing the previous trading day, but within a tenth of a second, which is forever in a computerized exchange, that price may move drastically one way or the other, based on news and on other markets. The sentiment, therefore, is simple; if you're trading after-hours, you're trading risky. You're not trading based on what the market's actually doing, you're trading based on what you think the market will do in the morning, and there's still more math going on every second in the privately-held supercomputers in rented cubes in the NYSE basement than you could do all night, digesting this news and projecting what it's going to do to the stocks. Now, if you've done your homework and the stock looks like a good long-term buy, with or without any after-hours news, then place the order at 3 in the morning; who cares what the stock's gonna do at the opening bell. You're gonna hold that stock for the next ten years, maybe; what it does in 5 seconds of opening turmoil is relatively minor compared to the monthly trends that you should be worrying about.


France is one country where cheques are common. More an more people are using credit cards for typical store payments and wire transfers are slowly gaining traction. There are several cases where cheques come handy: Sure, all these cases could ultimately be resolved with a wire transfer. Sometimes it is just simpler/faster to mail a piece of paper. This said, I believe than in 1à years from now even France will go cheque-less.


The Money Girl (Quick and Dirty Tips for a richer life) Podcast is a pretty good source for this type of information. Some Recent Topics:


Short answer is to put the max 15% contribution into your ESPP. Long answer is that since you want to be saving as much as you can anyway, this is a great way to force you to do it, and pick up at least a 15% return every six months (or however often your plan makes a purchase). I say at least because sometimes an ESPP will give you the lower of the beginning or end period stock price, and then a 15% discount off of that (but check the details of your plan). If you feel like your company's stock is a good long term investment, then hold onto the shares when purchased. Otherwise sell as soon as you get them, and bank that 15% return.


Stock awards by employers are treated and taxed as salary. I.e.: you pay ordinary rate income tax, FICA taxes, State taxes etc. The fact that you got your salary in shares and not cash is irrelevant for tax purposes. Once you got the shares and paid your taxes on them, the treatment is the same as if you got the salary and immediately bought the shares. Holding period for capital gains tax purposes starts at the time you paid your taxes on the award, which is the time at which you get full ownership (i.e.: vesting time, for the restricted stocks). When you sell these stocks - you treat the sale as any other stock sale: you check the holding period for capital gains tax rates, and you do not pay (or get refund) any FICA taxes on the sales transaction. So bottom line: You got $10K salary and you bought $10K worth of company stock, and you sold it at $8K half a year later. You have $10K wages income and $2K short term capital loss.


Never borrow money to get a tax deduction. Even 18 months interest free is a stupid risk to save a few $ in taxes (we're talking $1K or less in tax savings from what I can tell in your questions).


"The most important thing is not to tell yourself ""I'll save more later in my career when I have more disposable income,"" because of two factors. 1) You will get raises over your career, but unless you make it big, it will never really feel like you have extra money. You may double or triple your salary over a career, but it usually happens in small increments which your lifestyle tends to adjust upwards to meet even though it doesn't feel like it. 2) Later in your career you may have more money to save, but now the commodity you have is time. Your total savings at retirement are going to be influenced in a massive way by both of these factors. A good strategy is save SOMETHING early in your career even if it feels like an insignificant amount. Then save larger amounts later in your career when you are earning more, but have less time for your investments to grow and less tolerance for high risk/high growth investments."


Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.


First off, this is a post for /r/personalfinance.   Second off, if you want to think of this like an accountant/financier, those are the bank's 10233 dollars, not your's, and you are paying them 6% to keep that money. If you are confident that you are going to make more than 6% interest on any investments you make with that money, it makes sense to do so, although your return will be 6% less in reality. You also assume the risk of losing money on the investment and not having enough money to repay your loans.             tl;dr Pay off the loan.


I say again, more than a trillion dollars in student loan debt represents tremendous leverage if people in debt would form a consumer group and threaten to withhold payments until Congress retroactively gives them a much lower interest rate and brings back the ability to get out from under huge debt via bankruptcy, just like corporations do.


I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer.  I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years.  I am also in the United States and pay US taxes.  I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C.  However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year.  You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims.  It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years.  This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL.  For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.


"I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house.  Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your ""balance"" will go down as ""payments"" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings.  It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy.  Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings."


The catch is in the Premium amount you pay. In a pure term insurance, there is no survival benefit. You get paid only for the event, i.e. when you die during the policy term, the sum assured is paid to your nominee. The money back on the other hand, charges a huge premium, typically 5X more than the pure term, part of it is for the risk cover. The balance is then invested in safe instruments and at the end if you survive you would get that money. Typical calculations would show that if you had yourself invested the difference in premium even in CD's you would get much more money back. The reason this product is available in the market is more of people cannot part with money when they don't get anything back. To these vast majority, it looks like insurance company is taking all their money and doesn't give them back if they survive. Hence to make it seem better to these vast majority, there is money back. Hence people all over the world buy these policy much more than a pure term policy.


Cost.  If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.


For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22).  Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side,   speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has   three choices for exiting the market:


I'm not disagreeing with you about math.  But what you keep focusing on is your assumption people *need* $100 more per month to spend on energy.  Some people may, but can you see how your solution makes an assumption that most likely misses the point?


Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.


"I don't understand why he couldn't just log onto his account online, see the ""current balance"" and pay that?   I've got 4-5 credit cards (2 of them are Chase) and they *ALL* have an online portal which will show you a daily-calculated ""current balance"" right on your screen... you can then enter in your checking account and transfer over that amount to pay the whole thing off virtually instantly.   Does Chase continue to charge interest even after the balance goes to $0?"


Interest rates can't remain this low. It's like having extremely low blood pressure. When you raise the rates, banks are incented to loan money and that movement of capital is good for the economy. It forces us to become savers instead of spenders, and our pensions, 401ks, social security are all getting killed by not being able to use debt to get safer stable returns.  Interest rates have to come back up.


I buy or sell a few shares whenever I have a small amount of money to transfer into out of my mutual funds. Since I'm not paying transaction fees, there is no reason not to, when that is what makes sense. If you are paying a fee for each transaction, of course it makes sense to try to wait until you have a larger amount to move so the overhead per share is lower.


Most of the time, your tax only reduces by the current marginal rate - meaning you would only reduce your tax by 28% to 25% depending on which part of the bracket you're in. However, in the area around 100k, there are cases where reductions will have more of a marginal effect than that.  You'll never reduce it more than 100%, but you can reduce it by 35-40% despite being in the 25% bracket. That is because of certain deductions and credits which phase out beginning around 80k-120k; things like the IRA deduction, the Child Tax Credit, Childcare Tax Credit, and similar.  Since many of them phase out in this range, additional dollars cost you your marginal rate (25%) plus the percentage of the credits or deductions which phase out here, which might bring you up another 10% or so.


You report each position separately. You do this on form 8949. 7 positions is nothing, it will take you 5 minutes. There's a tip on form 8949 that says this, though: For Part I (short term transactions):  Note. You may aggregate all short-term transactions reported on   Form(s) 1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no   adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on   Schedule D, line 1a; you are not required to report these transactions   on Form 8949 (see instructions). For Part II (long term transactions): Note. You may aggregate all long-term transactions reported on Form(s)   1099-B showing basis was reported to the IRS and for which no   adjustments or codes are required. Enter the total directly on   Schedule D, line 8a; you are not required to report these transactions   on Form 8949 (see instructions). If the 1099B in your case shows basis for each transaction as reported to the IRS - you're in luck, and don't have to type them all in separately.


>And how did this cause the MBS to get wiped out, was it a written clause or did they just collapse from the value dropping so hard?   It was written into the debt instruments.  MBS and CDOs are broken down into tranches with descending priority of claims to the collateral pool.  When it comes time for payment, the top tranche gets paid out 100% before the one below it is entitled to a single cent, and so on and so forth.  Here's an example of how one might be organized:    Foo | Bar | text ---|---|---- Tranche | Size | Credit Rating Class A | 750MM | AAA Class B | 100MM | AA Class C | 60MM | A Class D | 50MM | BBB Class E | 40MM | Not Rated  In this example, lets say that 5% of the loans defaulted, meaning that of the $1B, only $950MM was available to get paid out (assuming no over-collateralization, which most had, but that's besides the point here).  The Class A would get the full 750 they're due, the Class B would get the full 100, and the Class C would get the full 60.  At this point there is only 40MM left, so the Class D would get 40 of the 50 due (a 20% write-down), and Class E would get nothing, getting completely wiped out.  >I dont know what subordination level means Subordination level basically just means how much debt it below it on the capital structure--how much needs to get completely wiped out before any particular tranche starts sharing in the losses.  > Did defaults reaching 8% meaning that 8% of loan takers defaulted?   Yeah more or less.  Technically I think it's that 8% of the value of the mortgages defaulted, but I believe they were set up to be relatively the same size within each instrument, so there's not really much distinction between 8% of the loan takers and 8% of the aggregate value.