"First, pay off the highest interest first.  If you have 80%, pay it first.   Paying off a card/loan with a lower rate, but a lower payment or a lower balance can help your mental capacity by having fewer things to pay.  But, this should be a decision where things are similar, such as 20-25%, not 20-80%.   What about any actual loans?  Any loans with a fixed payment and a fixed amount?   If you must continue to use CC while paying them off, use the one with the lowest interest rate.   Call all of your debtors and ask for reduction in interest rate.   This is not the option to take first...  This is a strategic possibility and will cause credit score issues... If you are considering bankruptcy or not paying back some, then you have even more negotiation power.  Consider calling them all and telling them that you only have a little bit of money and would like to negotiate a settlement with them.  ""I have only a limited amount of money, and lots of debt.  I will pay back whomever gives me the best deal.""  See what they say.  They may not negotiate until you stop paying them for a few months...  It is not uncommon to get them to reduce interest (even to 0%) and/or take a reduction in the amount due - up to 25 cents on the dollar.  To do this, you might need to pay the amount all at once, so look into loans from sources like retirement, home equity, life insurance, family...   Also, cut out all expenses.  Cut them hard; cut until it hurts.  Cut out the cell phone (get a pre-paid plan and/or budget $10-20/month), cut out all things like alcohol, tobacco, firearms, lottery, tattoos, cable tv, steak, eating out. Some people would suggest that you consider pets and finding them a new home.  No games, no trips, no movies, no new clothes...  Cut out soft drinks, candy, and junk food.   Take precautions to stay healthy - don't wear shoes in the house, brush your teeth, take a multi vitamin, get exercise, eat healthy (this is not expensive, organic stuff, just regular groceries).   Consider other ways to save, like moving in with family or friends.  Having family or friends live with you and pay rent.  Analyze costs like daycare vs. job income.  Apply for assistance - there are lots of levels, and some don't rely on others, such as daycare.   Consider making more money - new job, 2nd job, overtime, new career.   Consider commute - walk, bike, take the bus.  Work 4/10's.  Telework.   Make a list of every expense and prioritize them.  Only keep things which are really necessary.   Good Luck."


"That characterisation of arbitrage-free pricing sounds a bit like the ""relative vs. fundamental"" approaches to asset pricing that Cochrane outlines (in his text, *Asset Pricing*). Rebonato also makes this distinction with regard to term structure models in *Volatility and Correlation*.   On one extreme you have CAPM-style models in which asset prices are completely determined by investors' risk preferences; on the other extreme, you would have something like a SABR-Libor Market Model where you take everything up to and including the volatility surface as given.   What's interesting to me is the way in which these different classes of models get used in various parts of the financial industry. So, buy side firms tend to rely a lot more on equilibrium-style models, since they ultimately care about things like how the equity risk premium or the bond risk premium affect asset prices. In contrast, derivatives quants working at a big sell-side bank who are pricing exotics don't care about what the ""fundamental"" value of their underlying assets is; they just take that as given and price the exotic accordingly."


One of the things to consider is that most Vanguard funds are very tax efficient, that is they don't throw off much in the way of cap gains or taxable dividends while they grow. So if you do it right you won't have to pay much in the way of taxes on your investments even if they are in taxable accounts until retirement when at the very least you will have a lot more flexibility in managing your money and very likely be in a lower tax bracket. Roth is better if you are planning other types of investments, but if you are planning to hold an efficient Vanguard fund the difference isn't that bit.


For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham:  An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted.  The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows.  After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.


What options do I have? Realistically?  Get a regular full time job.  Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home.  I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic.  Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits.   However, I've been at this for quite a few years.  So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month.  In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts.  Also I had about a 30% down payment.   This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point.  The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble.


Those are the expected yields; they are not guaranteed. This was actually the bread and butter of Graham Newman, mispriced bonds.  Graham's writings in the Buffett recommended edition of Securities Analysis are invaluable to bond valuation. The highest yielder now is a private subsidiary of Société Générale.  A lack of financial statements availability and the fact that this is the US derivatives markets subsidiary are probably the cause of the higher rates. The cost is about a million USD to buy them. The rest will be similar cases, but Graham's approach could find a diamond; however, bonds are big ticket items, so one should expect to pay many hundreds of thousands of USD per trade.


It's never too early, but age 3 is when we started a piggy bank.  Age 4 is when we opened a bank account. When you go shopping with your children, discuss what items cost (such as bread, milk, books, etc.) Start teaching them that everything has a value...then relate it to how much they have saved.  Kids need to learn 3 basic things from their parents:  how to save/invest, how to spend wisely, how to share/donate


I'm assuming you're in the United States for this. I highly recommend getting a CPA to help you navigate the tax implications. Likely, you'll pay taxes as a sole proprietor, on top of any other income you made. Hopefully you kept good records because you'll be essentially paying for the profits, but you'll need to show the revenue and expenditures that you had. If you have any capital expenditures you may be able ton amortize them. But again, definitely hire a professional to help you, it will be well worth the cost.


"All investors have ultimately the same investment goal: maximize returns while limiting risk to an acceptable level. Of course we would love to maximize returns while minimizing risk, but in most cases if you want higher returns you must be willing to accept higher levels of risk. We must keep in mind that investors are humans, not computers. As such not everybody is willing to accept the same level of risk. Insurance is simply a way to ""buy down"" risk. Yes, it reduces our overall gains (most of the time), but so do bonds vs stocks (most of the time). And yet who among us doesn't have bonds in our portfolio? Insurance is yet another way to balance risk and return."


Definitely! BitCoin could also alleviate some of the concern that people might have about their identity/payment details being used to track their browsing habits.  If your payment method is anonymous, and you can register with a pseudonym, you can read all the twilight fan-fic you want!


He would spend it into the economy that is accepting his dollars. As an example, the apple maker might borrow $100 with $10 interest for the deer shank, then later on get the $100 back from the deer hunter in trade for 150 apples, and then pay this $100 to the banker. Now the apple maker still needs $10 to pay off his loan. The banker says he'll trade his $10 in interest profit for 15 apples, now the apple maker can resolve his debt without further borrowing.  The difference between spending interest earnings and issuing a loan is that when the banker is spending, they are getting something for their own use, when they are issuing the loan, they aren't getting anything but the promise to repay that loan.


While you can print that on the check, it isn't considered legally binding. If you are concerned about a check not being deposited in a timely manner, consider purchasing a cashier's check instead. This doesn't solve the problem per se, but it transfers responsibility of tracking that check from you to the bank.


"In the UK, I could start my own business - either as a self-employed person, or by starting a company. With a company, the company might have £50,000 income, £5,000 cost, and pay me a £45,000 salary. In that case the company has no profit and pays no taxes, but I personally pay income tax. Or I could pay myself any salary I like, say £20,000 salary, so I pay tax on £25,000 profit and £20,000 salary. The state actually gets less money in total if I set my salary so the company makes a profit.  If I'm self employed, income minus cost is my profit and I pay taxes on that. If I don't make profit, I pay no tax. Unfortunately, I also wouldn't have any money to buy food, pay the rent, and so on and so on. I'd have the same income and pay the same taxes as someone who is unemployed.  There are ""businesses"" that are just run for the enjoyment of the owner and don't make profit. Rich guy buys a farm and starts breeding race horses, that kind of thing. In that case, there is zero difference between a guy breeding race horses and calling it a ""business"" and another guy breeding race horses and calling it a hobby. Neither makes money and neither pays taxes."


Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)


"You are pushing your luck, but not because you're not in the US, because it is likely that you're not qualified. From what you said, I doubt you can take it (I'm not a professional though, get a professional opinion). You say ""dedicated space"". It has to be an exclusive room. You cannot deduct 10 sq. ft. from your living room because your computer that is used wholly for your business is there. It has to be a room that is used exclusively for your business, and for your business only. I.e.: nothing not related to the business is there, and when you're there the only thing you do is working on your business. Your office doesn't have to be in the US necessarily, to the best of my knowledge. Your office must be in your home. If you take primary residence exclusion as part of your FEI, then I doubt you can deduct as well."


"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you.  Basically you have 3 days to deliver.  You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply.  If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call.  (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline.  It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date.  It is your ""insurance"" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want.  That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds.  Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account.  There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online.  The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here.  Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations"


A CFA is plus all over the world but it probably won't be as useful as in the US. You can take the exams in many countries though so if you start in the US you should be able to continue back home. Better look online to see what your options are.   CFA is not perfect for all types of finance careers though so before you start make sure it makes sense for you.


"Edit:  This is false.  Seritage has no listed properties in Canada [on their website](http://www.seritage.com/properties)  And ""Fast Eddie"" will make even more bank by renting out the space occupied by his old hobby project through Seritage, after neglecting the space his hobby project was in since his purchase during his stock buybacks."


Try to find out (online) what 'the experts' think about your stock. Normally, there are some that advise you to sell, some to hold and some to buy. Hold on to your stock when most advise you to buy, otherwise, just sell it and get it over with. A stock's estimated value depends on a lot of things, the worst of these are human emotions... People buy with the crowd and sell on panic. Not something you should want to do.  The 'real' value of a stock depends on assets, cash-flow, backlog, benefits, dividends, etc. Also, their competitors, the market position they have, etc. So, once you have an estimate of how much the stock is 'worth', then you can buy or sell according to the market value. Beware of putting all your eggs in one basket. Look at what happened to Arthur Andersen, Lehman Brothers, Parmalat, Worldcom, Enron, etc.


Sample Numbers: Owe $100k on house.  House (after 'crash') valued at: $50K.  Reason for consternation: What rational person pays $100k for property that is only worth half that amount? True Story: My neighbor paid almost $250K (a quarter-of-a-million dollars - think about that..) for a house that when he walked (ran!) away from it was sold by the bank for $88K.  Unless he declares bankruptcy (and forgoes all his other assets, including retirement savings) he still owes the bank the difference. And even with bankruptcy, he may still owe the bank - this should cause anyone to be a bit concerned about being up-side down in a mortgage loan.


"In the UK there is a non-profit called the Citizen's Advice Bureau which provides free advice to people on a wide range of subjects, but including debt and budgeting. Consumer Credit Counselling Service provides explicit help but again, in the UK. A search for ""volunteer debt counsellor"" reveals a whole host of organizations that do that, but almost all based in the UK or Canada or Australia. The US seems not to be well provided with such organizations. This page advises people to volunteer as a debt counsellor, but gives no specifics of organizations, just ""Volunteer at local county community centers, churches and agencies. Your local faith-based organization might be a good place to start, even if you are not a member. Regrettably a search for ""free debt counselling"" produced a similar list of non-profits in UK and Canada, but mainly companies peddling consolidation loans in the US."


"As you note, your question is inherently opinion-based.  That said, if I were in your situation I would sell the stock all at once and buy whatever it is you want to buy (hopefully some index ETF or mutual fund). According to what I see, the current value of the HD stock is about $8500 and the JNJ stock is worth less than $500.  With a total investment of less than $10,000, any gain you are likely to miss by liquidating now is not going to be huge in absolute terms. This is doubly true since you were given the stock, so you have no specific reason to believe it will do well at all.  If you had picked it yourself based on careful analysis, it could be worth keeping if you ""believed in yourself"" (or even if you just wanted to test your acumen), but as it is the stock is essentially random.  Even if you want to pursue an aggressive allocation, it doesn't make sense to allocate everything to one stock for no reason.  If you were going to put everything in one stock, you'd want it to be a stock you had analyzed and picked.  (I still think it would be a bad idea, but at least it would be a more defensible idea.) So I would say the risk of your lopsided allocation (just two companies, with more than 90% of the value in just one) outweighs any risk of missing out on a gain.  If news breaks tomorrow that the CEO of Home Depot has been embezzling (or if Trump decides to go on the Twitter warpath for some reason), your investment could disappear. Another common way to think about it is: if you had $9000 today to buy stocks with, would you buy $8500 worth of HD and $500 worth of JNJ?  If not, it probably doesn't make sense to hold them just because you happen to have them. The only potential exception to my advice above would be tax considerations.  You didn't mention what your basis in the stock is.  Looking at historical prices, it looks like if all the stock was 20 years old you'd have a gain of about $8000, and if all of it was 10 years old you'd have a gain of about $6000.  If your tax situation is such that selling all the stock at once would push you into a higher tax bracket, it might make sense to sell only enough to fit into your current bracket, and sell the rest next year.  However, I think this situation is unlikely because: A) since the stock has been held for a long time, most of the gains will be at the lower long-term rate; B) if you have solid income, you can probably afford the tax; and C) if you don't have solid income, your long-term capital gains rate will likely be zero."


Your Purchase and Sale agreement should have a financing contingency. If it doesn't, your money may be at risk, and the agent did you no favor. Edit - I answered when away from computer. This is a snapshot of the standard clause from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Each state has its own standard documents.   The normal process is to have some level of prequalification, showing a high probability of final approval, make offer, then after it's accepted, this form is part of the purchase and sale process.


"Exactly what accounts are affected by any given transaction is not a fixed thing. Just for example, in a simple accounting system you might have one account for ""stock on hand"". In a more complex system you might have this broken out into many accounts for different types of stock, stock in different locations, etc. So I can only suggest example specific accounts. But account type -- asset, liability, capital (or ""equity""), income, expense -- should be universal. Debit and credit rules should be universal. 1: Sold product on account: You say it cost you $500 to produce. You don't say the selling price, but let's say it's, oh, $700. Credit (decrease) Asset ""Stock on hand"" by $500. Debit (increase) Asset ""Accounts receivable"" by $700. Credit (increase) Income ""Sales"" by $700. Debit (increase) Expense ""Cost of goods sold"" by $500. 2: $1000 spent on wedding party by friend I'm not sure how your friend's expenses affect your accounts. Are you asking how he would record this expense? Did you pay it for him? Are you expecting him to pay you back? Did he pay with cash, check, a credit card, bought on credit? I just don't know what's happening here. But just for example, if you're asking how your friend would record this in his own records, and if he paid by check: Credit (decrease) Asset ""checking account"" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense ""wedding expenses"" by $1000. If he paid with a credit card: Credit (increase) Liability ""credit card"" by $1000. Debit (increase) Expense ""wedding expenses"" by $1000. When he pays off the credit card: Debit (decrease) Liability ""credit card"" by $1000. Credit (decrease) Asset ""cash"" by $1000. (Or more realistically, there are other expenses on the credit card and the amount would be higher.) 3: Issue $3000 in stock to partner company I'm a little shakier on this, I haven't worked with the stock side of accounting. But here's my best stab: Well, did you get anything in return? Like did they pay you for the stock? I wouldn't think you would just give someone stock as a present. If they paid you cash for the stock: Debit (increase) Asset ""cash"". Credit (decrease) Capital ""shareholder equity"". Anyone else want to chime in on that one, I'm a little shaky there. Here, let me give you the general rules. My boss years ago described it to me this way: You only need to know three things to understand double-entry accounting: 1: There are five types of accounts: Assets: anything you have that has value, like cash, buildings, equipment, and merchandise. Includes things you may not actually have in your hands but that are rightly yours, like money people owe you but haven't yet paid. Liabilities: Anything you owe to someone else. Debts, merchandise paid for but not yet delivered, and taxes due. Capital (some call it ""capital"", others call it ""equity""): The difference between Assets and Liabilities. The owners investment in the company, retained earnings, etc. Income: Money coming in, the biggest being sales. Expenses: Money going out, like salaries to employees, cost of purchasing merchandise for resale, rent, electric bill, taxes, etc. Okay, that's a big ""one thing"". 2: Every transaction must update two or more accounts. Each update is either a ""debit"" or a ""credit"". The total of the debits must equal the total of the credits. 3: A dollar bill in your pocket is a debit. With a little thought (okay, sometimes a lot of thought) you can figure out everything else from there."


Let the man be. If you've tried again and again to convince him, and haven't, maybe he doesn't want to be convinced. It's his money, and he has every right to manage it as he sees fit. You can advise him, but its his call whether he accepts your advice or not, and for what reasons. And suppose you push and push and it gets through? Now either he has more money than he would otherwise, and he's happy he has such a smart friend. Or he loses 30% of his money, and you're trying to tell him that he's going to earn it back in due time, but you can't, because he's not talking to you. Ever. What do you think is the mean benefit to your friendship?


Here's another answer on the topic: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? An angle on it this question made me think of: a good approach here is to focus on savings rate (which you can control) rather than the final number (which you can't, plus it will fluctuate with the markets and make you nervous). For example, focus on saving at least 10% of your income annually (15% is much safer).  If you focus on the final number: The way it works in the real world is that you save as much as you can, but there are lots of random factors and unknowns. Some people end up having to work a lot longer than they hoped to. Others end up able to retire early. Others retire on time but have to spend less than they hoped. But the one thing you can often control (as long as you have an income and no catastrophes, anyway) is that you spend less than you make.


The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).


If your business is a Sole Proprietorship and meets the criteria, then you would file form Schedule C. In this case you can deduct all eligible business expenses, regardless of how you pay for them (credit/debit/check/cash). The fact that it was paid for using a business credit card isn't relevant as long as it is a true business expense. The general rules apply: Yes - if you sustain a net loss, that will carry over to your personal tax return. Note: even though it isn't necessary to use a business credit card for business expenses, it's still an extremely good idea to do so, for a variety of reasons.


Taking into account that you are in Cyprus, a Euro country, you should not invest in USD as the USA and China are starting a currency war that will benefit the Euro. Meaning, if you buy USD today, they will be worth less in a couple of months. As for the way of investing your money. Look at it like a boat race, starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 31st of December each year. There are a lot of boats in the water. Some are small, some are big, some are whole fleets. Your objective is to choose the fastest boat at any time. If you invest all of your money in one small boat, that might sink before the end of the year, you are putting yourself at risk. Say: Startup Capital. If you invest all of your money in a medium sized boat, you still run the risk of it sinking. Say: Stock market stock. If you invest all of your money in a supertanker, the risk of it sinking is smaller, and the probability of it ending first in the race is also smaller. Say: a stock of a multinational. A fleet is limited by it's slowest boat, but it will surely reach the shore. Say: a fund. Now investing money is time consuming, and you may not have the money to create your own portfolio (your own fleet). So a fund should be your choice. However, there are a lot of funds out there, and not all funds perform the same.  Most funds are compared with their index. A 3 star Morningstar rated fund is performing on par with it's index for a time period. A 4 or 5 star rated fund is doing better than it's index. Most funds fluctuate between ratings. A 4 star rated fund can be mismanaged and in a number of months become a 2 star rated fund. Or the other way around. But it's not just luck. Depending on the money you have available, your best bet is to buy a number of star rated, managed funds. There are a lot of factors to keep into account. Currency is one. Geography, Sector... Don't buy for less than 1.000€ in one fund, and don't buy more than 10 funds. Stay away from Gold, unless you want to speculate (short term). Stay away from the USD (for now). And if you can prevent it, don't put all your eggs in one basket.


Investors hungry for returns are piling back into securities once tarnished by the financial crisis.  Complex structured investments developed a bad reputation during the credit crunch. Ten years later, investors seeking yield are overcoming their skepticism and buying into securities that rely on financial engineering to juice returns.   Volumes of CLOs, or collateralized loan obligations, hit a record $247 billion in the first nine months of the year, according to data from J.P. Morgan Chase  JPM 1.59%▲  & Co. Fueled by a wave of refinancings and nearly $100 billion in new deals, that far outpaces their recent full-year high of $151 billion in 2014 and the precrisis peak of $136 billion in 2006.  The CLO boom is the latest sign of the ferocious hunt for yield permeating markets. Stellar performance over the past year has made CLOs increasingly hard to ignore for investors like insurance companies and pension funds.  CLOs carve up a portfolio of bank loans to highly indebted companies into slices of securities with different levels of risk. The securities at the bottom of the CLO stack offer the highest potential source of returns, but they are also the first to absorb losses if there are defaults in the underlying loan portfolio. The more senior slices offer lower returns but are more insulated from losses.  CLOs are often lumped together with other alphabet-soup acronyms of the financial crisis, such as more toxic CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. But CLOs actually weathered the financial crisis well: Investors who bought at the top of the market in 2007 suffered paper losses, but there were no defaults at all for the highest-rated securities.  That track record has helped boost CLOs’ appeal for investors with lingering concerns over scooping up more complex investments.    .   Taking off / Global CLO volumes   “The demand for things like CLOs….is extraordinary,” said Rick Rieder, chief investment officer for global fixed income at BlackRock  Inc.   CLOs are one of the largest demand sources for the leveraged loan market, which has also been booming this year. Volumes of leveraged loans, often used by private-equity firms to fund buyouts, are on track to surpass their 2007 record, according to LCD, a unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence. At the same time, investors have voiced concerns about companies’ rising leverage level, and weaker creditor protections.  Within a CLO are different risk profiles: Investors in the most senior, AAA-rated piece of debt get paid first and are the most insulated from losses if defaults rise in the underlying loan portfolio. They also receive the skinniest returns. Slices of debt further down receive higher returns, but will suffer losses if defaults spike. At the bottom sits the equity tranche, the first loss-absorber and last to get paid, but the highest potential source of returns.  A 2014 report from Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services stated that AAA-rated and AA-rated CLO tranches incurred no losses at all between 1994 and 2013. Loss rates for lower-rated tranches, meanwhile, were low—just 1.1% for B-rated securities over that period.    .   Flying High / Market returns since J.P. Morgan recommended buying CLOs last July   That doesn’t prevent some conservative investors from conflating the CLOs with the now-infamous CDOs, many of which were linked to subprime mortgages and spread and amplified losses in the U.S. housing market. One breed of CDOs are on a comeback path of their own, with more investors returning to them during an aging bull market.  Many people were “burnt by these acronyms from the crisis,” said Zak Summerscale, head of credit fund management for Europe and Asia Pacific at Intermediate Capital Group . He is currently recommending that clients buy senior CLO tranches over investment-grade bonds.  CLOs, like other types of securitizations, have been subject to greater regulation since the financial crisis. That includes forcing funds that manage a CLO to retain 5% of the securities, in an effort to align incentives with investors.  That has “attracted additional capital into the market,” said Mike Rosenberg, a principal at alternative investment manager Tetragon.  Assets under management in the “loan participation” sector—a proxy for funds that invest in CLOs—have grown 21% this year to $206 billion, according to Thomson Reuters Lipper.  The pickup in CLOs has been a boon to banks weathering declines in trading revenues in the current low-volatility environment. Revenue from CLO-related activity at the top 12 global investment banks more than doubled over the first half of 2017 from a year earlier to almost $1 billion, according to financial consultancy Coalition.  CLO investors have been handsomely rewarded in recent months. J.P. Morgan strategist Rishad Ahluwalia recommended clients buy CLOs last July as he thought they looked too cheap. Between then and the end of September, BB-rated CLO tranches returned 25.4%, compared with a 25.2% return for the technology-oriented Nasdaq stock index, according to his calculations.  “CLOs have been an absolute home run,” said Mr. Ahluwalia, though he added such chunky returns aren’t repeatable.  Analysts say CLOs got beaten down last year following a series of troubles in the underlying loan market, including distress in the energy sector. Some analysts think the strong rally in CLO tranches since then should give investors pause; others think the market has further to run.  Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions, likes AAA-rated CLO tranches but with a twist: leverage.  Mr. Champion says he buys senior European CLO tranches and borrows money against them to increase the size of his position between five and 10 times. That can amplify gains—and losses—significantly.  “The difference between now and a year ago is the availability of leverage,” he said.  Bankers say only a small proportion of CLO buyers use leverage and emphasize that trades are subject to daily margin calls. That means investors have to post cash to cover mark-to-market losses on a position, which in turn limits how much they are willing to borrow.  “The leverage in the system today is a fraction compared to precrisis,” said J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Ahluwalia.  Write to Christopher Whittall at christopher.whittall@wsj.com   Appeared in the October 23, 2017, print edition as 'Crisis-Era Securities Regain Investors’ Favor.'


"I (and probably most considering trading) had a similar thought as you.  I thought if I just skimmed the peaks and sold before the troughs, perhaps aided by computer, I'd be able to make a 2% here, 2% there, and that would add up quickly to a nice amount of money.  It almost did seem ""foolproof"". Then I realized that sometimes a stock just slides...down...and there is no peak higher than what I bought it for.  ""That's OK,"" I'd think, ""I'm sure it will recover and surpass the price I bought it for...so now I play the waiting game.""  But then it continues sliding, and my $10k is now worth $7k.  Do I sell?  Did I build a stop loss point into my computer program?  If so, what is the right place to put that stop?  What if there is a freak dip down and it triggers the stop loss but THEN my stock recovers?  I just lost $14,000 like this last week--luckily, only virtually! The point is, your idea only has half a chance to work when there is a mildly volatile stock that stays around some stable baseline, and even then it is not easy.  And then you factor in fees as others mentioned... People do make money doing this (day traders), and some claim you can use technical analysis to time orders well, so if you want to try that, read about technical analysis on this site or elsewhere."


I think it's fairly obvious that I'm talking about people that have recently graduated college that are 21-25 years old. If you need me to spell it out, plenty of people make 100k out of college after having graduated at the age of <25.


I think the point is that m2 is 13.7 trillion usd, the Swiss investment is not even *half* a percent.  The us equities marker valuation is larger at 22.5 trillion USD. Dumping an extra 100 bil usd is too little to do anything. Even dumping a trillion USD  is a relatively small number.


This doesn't sound very legal to me. Real estate losses cannot generally be deducted unless you have other real estate income. So the only case when this would work is when that person has bunch of other buildings that do produce income, and he reduces that income, for tax purposes, by deducting the expenses/depreciation/taxes for the buildings that do not. However, depreciation doesn't really reduce taxes, only defers them to the sale. As mhoran_psprep said - all the rest of the expenses will be minimal.


I don't recommend Roth for those in the 25% bracket. If you are in the 25% bracket now, I'd suggest you go pretax and as you are planning to be in a lower bracket in a few years, use that bracket to convert. Depositing today at 25% to convert at 15% in a few years puts you that much ahead.  I understand the allure of a Roth heavy strategy. And the fuzzy crystal ball for what the tax code will look like doesn't help. That said, a retiree today who is a few years too young for Social Security will see an Exemption + STD deduction of $10,000, and a 15% bracket ending at $36,250, so $46,250 total with a total tax bill of $4991. A retiree should target $250K-$500K pretax to stay flexible and not miss these low brackets in the future.


"I think it's apt to remind that there's no shortcuts, if someone thinks about doing FX  fx: - negative sum game (big spread or commissions) - chaos theory description is apt - hard to understand costs (options are insurance and for every trade there is equivalent option position - so unless you understand how those are priced, there's a good chance you're getting a ""sh1tty deal"" as that Goldman guy famously said) - averaging can help if timing is bad but you could be just getting deeper into the ""deal"" I just mentioned and giving a smarter counterparty your money could backfire as it's the ""ammo"" they can use to defend their position.  This doesn't apply to your small hedge/trade? Well that's what I thought not long ago too! That's why I mentioned chaos theory. If you can find a party to hedge with that is not hedging with someone who eventually ends up hedging with JPM/Goldman/name any ""0 losing days a year"" ""bank"".. Then you may have a point. And contrary to what many may still think, all of the above applies to everything you can think of that has to do with money. All the billions with 0-losing days need to come from somewhere and it's definitely not coming just from couple FX punters."


It's better to use the accounting equation concept: Asset + Expenses = Capital + Liabilities + Income If you purchase an asset: Suppose you purchased a laptop of $ 500, then its journal will be: If you sell the same Laptop for $ 500, then its entry will be:


I guess you are from US? EDI solutions are starting to be standard in most EU countries. The invoices we get are through EDI solutions and we can automate most of them.  We recently upgraded our invoice process solution and now we need one less AP position.


Selling options is a great idea, but tweak it a bit and sell credit spreads on both sides of the market, i.e. sell OTM bear call spreads and OTM bull put spreads. This is also known as an iron condor, and limits risk, and allows for much more flexibility.


The problem would not only be that of Kyle but also that of American Express. When Kyle pays by credit card, American Express pays the bills out of their pockets on his behalf and then forwards the bill to Kyle. The issuer of a credit card takes the risk that the holder of the card won't pay the credit card bill. In practice there are safeguards in place which prevent a company like AE to pay such huge sums in one day through an automated process. Credit card companies have sophisticated algorithms to determine unusual spending patterns and block any transactions which appear unusual. Also, after a few billions their bank will likely block them and prevent them from paying any more bills. But let's play along and pretend these safeguards wouldn't exist. That means after Kyle's spending spree, American Express will be trillions in debt, with their main debitor being a 10 year old boy who won't ever be able to pay. Kyle will have to declare personal bankruptcy. There are various variants of bakruptcy in the US, but they basically all boil down to him paying everything he can pay (not much considering that he is 10) and then defaulting on his debt. Afterwards he is debt-free. That means the debt is now that of American Express. American Express will not be able to pay that debt with their bank(s) either, so they will have to declare bankruptcy and default on their debt too. This domino effect passes the burden on to the banks which can not carry a trillion-level debt either. A bank going bankrupt is a serious issue because it means they can not pay back any of the money in the saving accounts hold by companies or private people with them. So the problem would return to those people Kyle wanted to help in the first place. Also, the collapse of one bank will often result in the collapse of further banks, resulting in a collapse spiral destroying the whole world-wide finance system. Nothing would be gained.


I think you leave out the major problem of your partners in crime there.    Chances are one of them will eventually slip up later in life, and at some point snitch on you in order to get out of trouble.  This is particularly true if you would manage to acquire amounts in the 100k range per participant.  The inside man would pose the greatest risk there.


"By protected you mean what exactly? In the US, generally you'd get a promissory note signed by B saying ""B promises to repay A such and such amount on such and such terms"". In case of default you can sue in a court of law, and the promissory note will be the evidence for your case. In case of B declaring bankruptcy, you'd submit the promissory note to the bankruptcy court to get in line with all the other creditors. Similarly in all the rest of the world, you make a contract, you enforce the contract in courts."


How often do you need to actually go to a bank?  atm's, debit and credit cards work where ever.  you can even deposit checks by taking a picture of them.  dealing with cash would be more troublesome though.


Reading the descriptions on Amazon.com it appears Investments is a graduate text and Elements of Investments is the undergraduate version of the text.


Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has.  On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out.  The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards.   The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can.  I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology.


I would strongly suggest you select an answer: all the above two cover everything I can possibly recommend, but perhaps my perspective as a person who was exactly in your shoes a year ago might appeal to you more. My first bank was Chase, and they usually give out a free checking account to students that come with leaves of 100 checks. Unfortunately, I was 24 at that time, and the max possible age to qualify was 23 or 21. Paying $25 for any number of checks was a big deal for me as I had no job, and transportation and rent was costing me $1k/month anyways. I came here and asked questions: lots of them. MrChrister, God bless his soul, recommended credit unions to me. I never knew they existed. A year later, I am a proud member of 3 CUs: I recommend Alliant, DCU and SchoolsFirst: I am their member and very proud of it!


You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension.  They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.


It's illegal and you can go to jail because it exploits the small companies and their investors who believe in the company.


"Personally I would have a hard time ""locking up"" the money for that very little return.  I would probably rather earn no interest in favor of the liquidity. However, you should find out what the early removal penalties are.  If those are minimal and you are very confident that you will not need the money over the term period then its definitely better to earn something rather than nothing. If inflation is negative you aren't out as much not getting any interest as you would be normally. Consider that in 2014 US inflation was 0.8%.  Online liquid savings accounts pay about 1%.  so that's only .2% positive.  In comparison at -.4% you are better off with no interest than a US person putting their money in a paying savings account.  Keep in mind though that inflation can change month to month so just because June was negative doesn't mean the year will be that way. Not sure your ability to invest in the US market or what stable dividend payers may exist in Sweden.... You said you are risk averse, but it may be worth it to find a stable dividend paying fund.  I like one called PFF, it pays a monthly dividend of 6% and over 5 years stock price is very stable.  Of course this is quite a significant jump in risk because you can lose money if markets tank (PFF is down over 10 years quite a bit).  Maybe splitting up the money and diversifying?"


Good tax people are expensive. If you are comfortable with numbers and computers, you can do it better yourself.


A self-directed IRA could be a good solution for you and all IRAs are qualified IRAs the administrator must allow for alternative assets. However, if you're looking to do the ROBS (Roll Over Business Start-up) system, there are not very many administrators that can facilitate that. There is also a checkbook IRA (aka single member LLC) that more administrators are able to work with, but the rules are different from a ROBS plan. Check with your financial adviser, CPA, tax guru and ask which method would work best for what you're looking to accomplish.


First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer.


So what, if anything, might this mean for those of us who still have those Countrywide mortgages?  BTW, my subprime mortgage is awesome. We rode out a bad year where the price shot up to $4,000/month. Today it's way down and we're paying only 2.5%.


"I strongly suggest you look at CreditKarma and see how each aspect of what you are doing impacts your score. Here's my take - There's an anti-credit approach that many have which, to me, is over the top. ""Zero cards, zero credit"" feels to me like one step shy of ""off the grid."" It's so far to the right that it actually is more of an effort than just playing the game a bit. You are depositing to the card frequently to do what you are doing. That takes time and effort. Why not just pay the bill in full each month, and just track purchases so you move the cash to the account in advance, whether that's physical or on paper?  In your case, it's the same as charging one item every few months to keep the card active. If that's what you'd like to do, that's fine. I'd just avoid having the card take up too much of your time and thought.  (Disclaimer - I've used and written about Credit Karma. I have no business relationship with them, my articles are to help readers, and not paid placement.) mhoran's response is in line with my thinking. His advice to use the card to build your score is what the zero-credit folk criticize as ""a great debt score."" Nonsense. If you use debt wisely, you'll never pay interest (except for a mortgage, perhaps) and you may gain rewards with no cost to you."


That seems to indicate that you can in fact depreciate a vehicle given   to you? Section 1015 discusses the calculation of basis for gifted property, it says nothing about depreciation. Personal property cannot be depreciated for tax purposes unless it is used for business purposes. So unless you drive your car as part of your sole-proprietor business, you cannot depreciate it, be it a gift or a car you purchased yourself. If you can depreciate the car, then sec. 1015 is used to calculate the basis for the depreciation.


"I found the answer after some searching online. It turns out that when talking options, rarely is the current P/L line considered when talking about making adjustments/taking trades off. From Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/breakevenpoint.asp ""... For options trading, the breakeven point is the market price that a stock must reach for an option buyer to avoid a loss if they exercise the option. For a call buyer, the breakeven point is the strike price plus the premium paid, while breakeven for a put position is the strike price minus the premium paid."" The first sentence sounds more like the current P/L line, but the bold section clearly states the rule I was looking for. In the example posted in my question above, the breakpoints labeled with ""1"" would be the break points I should consider."


Your biggest concern will be what happens during the transition period. In the past when my employer made a switch there has been a lockout period where you couldn't move money between funds. Then over a weekend the money moved from investment company A to investment Company B. All the moves were mapped so that you knew which funds your money would be invested in, then staring Monday morning you could switch them if you didn't like the mapping. No money is lost because the transfer is actually done in $'s. Imagine both investment companies had the same S&P 500 fund, and that the transfer takes a week. If when the first accounts are closed the S&P500 fund has a share value of $100 your 10 hares account has a value of $1000. If the dividend/capital gains are distributed during that week; the price per share when the money arrives in the second investment company will now be $99. So that instead of 10 shares @ $100 you now will buy 10.101 shares @ $99. No money was lost. You want that lookout period to be small, and you want the number of days you are not invested in the market to be zero. The lockout limits your ability to make investment changes, if for instance the central bank raises rates. The number of days out of the market is important if during that period of time there is a big price increase, you wouldn't want to miss it. Of course the market could also go lower during that time.


Diversity of risk is always a good idea.  The cheapest equity-based investment (in terms of management costs) is some form of tracker or indexed fund.  They're relatively low risk and worth putting in a fixed amount for long-term investment. I agree with Ngu Soon Hui, you're going to need a lot of cash if you decide to start your own business.  You may have to cover a significant amount of time without an income and you don't want all your cash tied up. However, putting all your money into one business is not good risk management.  Keep some savings where they can be a lifeline, should you need it.


"According to the book of Hull, american and european calls on non-dividend paying stocks should have the same value. American puts, however, should be equals to, or more valuable than, european puts. The reason for this is the time value of money. In a put, you get the option to sell a stock at a given strike price. If you exercise this option at t=0, you receive the strike price at t=0 and can invest it at the risk-free rate. Lets imagine the rf rate is 10% and the strike price is 10$. this means at t=1, you would get 11.0517$. If, on the other hand, you did'nt exercise the option early, at t=1 you would simply receive the strike price (10$). Basically, the strike price, which is your payoff for a put option, doesn't earn interest. Another way to look at this is that an option is composed of two elements: The ""insurance"" element and the time value of the option. The insurance element is what you pay in order to have the option to buy a stock at a certain price. For put options, it is equals to the payout= max(K-S, 0) where K=Strike Price and St= Stock price.  The time value of the option can be thought of as a risk-premium. It's difference between the value of the option and the insurance element. If the benefits of exercising a put option early (i.e- earning the risk free rate on the proceeds) outweighs the time value of the put option, it should be exercised early. Yet another way to look at this is by looking at the upper bounds of put options. For a european put, today's value of the option can never be worth more than the present value of the strike price discounted at the risk-free rate. If this rule isn't respected, there would be an arbitrage opportunity by simply investing at the risk-free rate. For an american put, since it can be exercised at any time, the maximum value it can take today is simply equals to the strike price. Therefore, since the PV of the strike price is smaller than the strike price, the american put can have a bigger value. Bear in mind this is for a non-dividend paying stock. As previously mentioned, if a stock pays a dividend it might also be optimal to exercise just before these are paid."


Flipping usually refers to real-estate transaction: you buy a property, improve/renovate/rehabilitate it and resell it quickly. The distinction between flipper and investor is similar to the distinction between trader and investor, even though the tax code doesn't explicitly refer to house flipping. Gains on house flipping can be considered as active business gain or passive activity income, which are treated differently: passive income goes on Schedule E and Schedule D, active income goes on Schedule C. The distinction between passive and active is based on the characteristics of the activity (hours you spent on it, among other things). Trading income can similarly be considered as either passive (Schedule D/E treatment) or active (Schedule C treatment). Here's what the IRS has to say about traders: Special rules apply if you are a trader in securities, in the business   of buying and selling securities for your own account. This is   considered a business, even though you do not maintain an inventory   and do not have customers. To be engaged in business as a trader in   securities, you must meet all of the following conditions: The following facts and circumstances should be considered in   determining if your activity is a securities trading business: If the nature of your trading activities does not qualify as a   business, you are considered an investor... Investor, in this context, means passive income treatment (Schedule D/E). However, even if your income is considered active (Schedule C), stock sale proceeds are not subject to the self-employment tax. As you can see, there's no specific definition, but the facts and circumstances matter. You may be considered a trader by the IRS, or you may not. You may want to be considered a trader (for example to be able to make a mark-to-market election), or you may not. You should talk to a professional tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) for more details and suggestions.


At the area where I live (Finland), banks typically charge a lot more for additional mortgage credit taken after purchasing the house. So, if you are planning to purchase a house, and pay it with a mortgage, you get a very good rate, but if you pay back the mortgage and then realize you need additional credit, you get a much worse rate. So, if this is applicable to your area as well, I would simply buy stocks after you have paid enough of the mortgage that it is only 50% of the house price or so. This is especially good advice if you are young. Also, if your mortgage is a fixed rate and not an adjustable rate mortgage, you probably have a very low permanent interest rate on it as interest rates are low currently (adjustable rate mortgages will also have a low rate but it will surely go up). Some people say there's a bubble currently in the stock market, but actually the bubble is in the bond market. Stocks are expensive because the other alternatives (bonds) are expensive as well. Paying back your mortgage is equivalent to investing money in bonds. I don't invest in bonds at the current ridiculously low interest rates; I merely invest in stocks and have a small cash reserve that will become even smaller as I discover new investment opportunities. I could pay back a significant percentage (about 50%) of the loans I have by selling my stocks and using my cash reserves. I don't do that; I invest in stocks instead, and am planning to increase my exposure to the stock market at a healthy pace. Also, consider the fact that mortgage is cheap credit. If you need additional credit for consumption due to e.g. becoming suddenly unemployed, you will get it only at very expensive rates, if at all. If you're very near the retirement age (I'm not), this advice may not be applicable to you. Edit: and oh, if your mortgage is fixed rate, and interest rates have come down, the bank will require you to pay the opportunity cost of the unpaid interests. So, you may need to pay more than you owe the bank. Edit2: let's assume the bank offered you a 4% fixed rate for a 10-year loan, which you agreed to. Now let's also assume interest rates of new agreements have come down to 2%. It would be a loss to the bank to pay back the amount of the loan (because the bank cannot get 4% by offering somebody else a new loan, only 2%), unless you paid also 10 years * (4% - 2%) * amount = 20% * amount of lost interest income. At least where I live, in fixed rate loans, one needs to pay back the bank this opportunity cost of unpaid interests.


Question (which you need to ask yourself): How well are your friends paid for their work? What would happen if you just took your money and bought a garage, and hired two car mechanics? How would that be different from what you are doing?  The money that you put into the company, is that paid in capital, or is it a loan to the company that will be repaid?


Quick get a Social Security Number for the child. You will need it before you file your taxes early next year. If you don't have a SSN for your child you will not be able to claim them as a dependent. If you applied for one already, many do so at the hospital, then wait for it to arrive. The next step is to open a savings account with the child's SSN. Then have your parent write the check in the child's name and deposit it into the account.  If it is written in the child's name already then you don't need a new check from them. If the check is large, you may run into problems if you take a check in the name of a minor and try and deposit it into your account. The bank would have no idea that the person is related to you.


You can try Wave Accounting. Its a free software for Small Business and web-based. http://waveaccounting.com/


It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations.  But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it.  So the essence of your question is fundamentally true.  But the details make it different.  Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting.  Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues.  A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference.  You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote.  Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company.  But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed.


Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)


The advice is always to not get a big refund from the IRS, because that is giving them an interest free loan. You actually have an opportunity to get an interest free loan from them.  When you file your taxes for 2013 note how much you paid in taxes. Not the check you had to send in with your tax form or the refund you received, but the total amount in taxes you paid. Multiply that amount by 1.1 or (110%). For example $8,000 * 1.10 = $8,800. When you get your paychecks in 2014 you goal is to make sure that your federal taxes (not state, Social security or medicare) taken from your paycheck will get you over that number $8,800 /26 or ~350 a paycheck. Keep in mind that the later you start the more each check needs to be. You will owe them a big check in April 2015. But because of the 110% rule you will not owe interest, penalties, or have to deal with quarterly taxes. The 110% rule exempts you from these if you end them 110% as much a you paid in taxes the previous year. Note that no matter how you pay your taxes for 2014: big check now, extra per paycheck, or minimum now; you will have to watch your withholding during 2015 because the 110% rule won't protect you.


"There are several areas of passive fraud by being unclear on what you are doing.  When a citizen buys a house, the mortgage lender wants all the details as to how the buyer rounded up the money.  That is so they can use their own formulas to assess the buyer's creditworthiness and the probability that the buyer will be able to keep up on payments, taxes and maintenance; or have they overextended themselves. The fraud is in the withholding of that info. By way of tricking them into making a favorable decision, when they might not have if they'd had all the facts.  Then there's making this sound all lovey-dovey, good intentions, no strings attached, no expectations. You're lying to yourself.  What you've actually done is put money between yourselves, because you have not laid down FAIR rules to cover every possibility.  You're not willing to plan for failure because you don't want to admit failure is possible, which is vain.  Once you leap into this bell jar, the uncertainty of ""what happens if..."" will intrude itself into everyone's thoughts, slowly corroding your relationship.  It's a recipe for disaster.  That uncertainty puts her in a very uncomfortable position.  She has to labor to make sure the issue doesn't explode, so she's tiptoeing around you to avoid fights.  Every fight, she'll wonder if you'll play the breakup card and threaten to demand the money back.  The money will literally come between you. This is what money does.  Thinking otherwise is a young person's mistake of inexperience.  Don't take my word on it, contact Suze Orman and see what she says. Your lender is also not going to like those poorly defined lovers' promises, because they've seen it all before, and don't want to yet again foreclose on a house that fighting lovers trashed.  (it's like, superhero battles are awesome unless you own the building they trashed.)  This thing can still be done, but to remove this fraud of wishful thinking, you need to scrupulously plan for every possibility, agree to outcomes that are fair and achievable, put it in writing and share it with a neutral third party.  You haven't done it, because it seems like it would be awkward as hell - and it will be! - Or it will test your relationship by forcing direct honesty about a bunch of things you haven't talked about or are afraid to - and it will! - And to be blunt, your relationship may not be able to survive that much honesty.  But if it does, you'll be in much better shape.   The other passive fraud is taxes.  By not defining the characteristics of the payment, you fog up the question of how your contribution will be taxed (if it will be taxed). A proper contract with each other will settle that.  (there's an argument to be made for involving a tax advisor in the design of that contract, so that you can work things to your advantage.)  As an example, defining the payment as ""rent"" is about the worst you could do, as you will not be able to deduct any home expenses, she will need to pay income tax on the rent, but she can cannot take landlord's tax deductions on anything but the fraction of the house which is exclusively in your control; i.e. none."


I didn't take too many finance or economics courses so i can't comment.   In my post I recommended the YouTube video or audiobook 'why an economy grows and why it doesn't'  I guess it's more economy related than finance related, but is still relevant as it touches on loans and net worth and stuff.


"What you're looking for are either FX Forwards or FX Futures.   These products are traded differently but they are basically the same thing -- agreements to deliver currency at a defined exchange rate at a future time.   Almost every large venue or bank will transact forwards, when the counterparty (you or your broker) has sufficient trust and credit for the settlement risk, but the typical duration is less than a year though some will do a single-digit multi-year forward on a custom basis.  Then again, all forwards are considered custom contracts.  You'll also need to know that forwards are done on currency pairs, so you'll need to pick the currency to pair your NOK against.  Most likely you'll want EUR/NOK simply for the larger liquidity of that pair over other possible pairs. A quote on a forward will usually just be known by the standard currency pair ticker with a settlement date different from spot.  E.g. ""EUR/NOK 12M"" for the 12 month settlement. Futures, on the other hand, are exchange traded and more standardized.  The vast majority through the CME (Chicago Mercantile Exchange).  Your broker will need access to one of these exchanges and you simply need to ""qualify"" for futures trading (process depends on your broker).  Futures generally have highest liquidity for the next ""IMM"" expiration (quarterly expiration on well known standard dates), but I believe they're defined for more years out than forwards.   At one FX desk I've knowledge of, they had 6 years worth of quarterly expirations in their system at any one time.  Futures are generally known by a ticker composed of a ""globex"" or ""cme"" code for the currency concatenated with another code representing the expiration.  For example, ""NOKH6"" is 'NOK' for Norwegian Krone, 'H' for March, and '6' for the nearest future date's year that ends in '6' (i.e. 2016).   Note that you'll be legally liable to deliver the contracted size of Krone if you hold through expiration!  So the common trade is to hold the future, and net out just before expiration when the price more accurately reflects the current spot market."


"Simplest way to answer this is that on margin, one is using borrowed assets and thus there are strings that come with doing that. Thus, if the amount of equity left gets too low, the broker has a legal obligation to close the position which can be selling purchased shares or buying back borrowed shares depending on if this is a long or short position respectively. Investopedia has an example that they walk through as the call is where you are asked to either put in more money to the account or the position may be closed because the broker wants their money back. What is Maintenance Margin? A maintenance margin is the required   amount of securities an investor must hold in his account if he either   purchases shares on margin, or if he sells shares short. If an   investor's margin balance falls below the set maintenance margin, the   investor would then need to contribute additional funds to the account   or liquidate stocks in the account to bring the account back to the   initial margin requirement. This request is known as a margin call. As discussed previously, the Federal Reserve Board sets the initial   margin requirement (currently at 50%). The Federal Reserve Board also   sets the maintenance margin. The maintenance margin, the amount of   equity an investor needs to hold in his account if he buys stock on   margin or sells shares short, is 25%. Keep in mind, however, that this   25% level is the minimum level set, brokerage firms can increase, but   not decrease this level as they desire. Example: Determining when a margin call would occur. Assume that an   investor had purchased 500 shares of Newco's stock. The shares were   trading at $50 when the transaction was executed. The initial margin   requirement on the account was 70% and the maintenance margin is 30%.   Assume no transaction costs. Determine the price at which the investor   will receive a margin call. Answer: Calculate the price as follows: $50 (1- 0.70) = $21.43 1 - 0.30 A margin call would be received when the price of Newco's stock fell   below $21.43 per share. At that time, the investor would either need   to deposit additional funds or liquidate shares to satisfy the initial   margin requirement. Most people don't want ""Margin Calls"" but stocks may move in unexpected ways and this is where there are mechanisms to limit losses, especially for the brokerage firm that wants to make as much money as possible. Cancel what trade? No, the broker will close the position if the requirement isn't kept. Basically think of this as a way for the broker to get their money back if necessary while following federal rules. This would be selling in a long position or buying in a short sale situation. The Margin Investor walks through an example where an e-mail would be sent and if the requirement isn't met then the position gets exited as per the law."


The financial reasons, beyond simply owning your home outright, are: You're no longer paying interest. Yes, the interest is tax-deductible in the U.S. (though not in Canada), but the tax savings is a percentage of a percentage; if you paid, say, $8000 in interest last year, at the 25% marginal rate you effectively save $2000 off your taxes. But, if you paid off your home and had that $8000 in your pocket, you'd pay the $2000 in taxes but you'd have $6000 left over. Which is the better deal? In Canada, the decision gets even easier; you pay taxes on the interest money either way, so you're either spending the $8000 in interest, lost forever as cost of capital, or on other things. Whatever you're earning is going into your own pocket, not the bank's. Similar to the interest, but also including principal, a home you own outright is a mortgage payment you don't have to make. You can now use that money, principal and interest, for other things. Whether these advantages outweigh those of anything else you could do with a few hundred grand depends primarily on the rate of return. If you got in at the bottom of the mortgage crisis (which is pretty much right now) and got a rate in the 3-4% range, with no MIP or other payment on top, then almost anything you can do with the amount you'd need to pay off a mortgage principal would get you a better rate of return. However, you'll need some market savvy to avoid risks.  In most cases when someone has pretty much any debt and a big wad of cash they're considering how to spend, I usually recommend paying off the debt, because that is, in effect, a risk-free way to increase the net rate of return on your total wealth and income. Balancing debt with investments always carries with it the risk that the investment will fail, leaving you stuck with the debt. Paying the debt on the other hand will guarantee that you don't have to pay interest on that outstanding amount anymore, so it's no longer offsetting whatever gains you are making in the market on your savings or future investments.


To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance.  The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market.  Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep?  And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties.   Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.


"Yes, you can deduct up to your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) or your contribution limit, whichever is lower. Note that this reduces your taxable income, not your taxes.  This is self-employment income, which is included as compensation for IRA purposes.   You still have to pay self-employment taxes (Social Security and Medicare) though.  You pay those before calculating AGI.  So this won't entirely shield your 1099 income from taxes, just from income taxes.   Note that if you have both W-2 and 1099-MISC income, you don't get to pick which gets ""shielded"" from taxes.  It all gets mixed together in the same bucket.  There may be additional limitations if you are covered by a retirement plan at work."


"**The 25% is an utterly meaningless statistic absent the age-demographic breakdown.**  One would easily expect the 18 to ~30 year age group to have little in the way of savings (and the 18 to 30 year age group is > 20% of the population by itself).  This is (like the ""upper X% have more net worth than the lower YY%"") yet another one of these idiotic/inane/misleading abuses of aggregate statistics.  Also, this really isn't ""news"" in that it isn't anything *new* -- for the majority of Americans ""savings"" pretty much disappeared a couple of decades ago."


Car dealers as well as boat dealers, RV dealers, maybe farm vehicle dealers and other asset types make deals with banks and finance companies to they can make loans to buyers. They may be paying the interest to the finance companies so they can offer a 0% loan to the retail customer for all or part of the loan term.  Neither the finance company nor the dealer wants to make such loans to people who are likely to default. Such customers will not be offered this kind of financing. But remember too that these loans are secured by the asset - the car - which is also insured. But the dealer or the finance company holds that asset as collateral that they can seize to repay the loan. So the finance company gets paid off and the dealer keeps the profit he made selling the car. So these loans are designed to ensure the dealer nor the finance company looses much. These are called asset finance loans because there is always an asset (the car) to use as collateral.


You're right about FICA (I forgot it is calculated on gross income and not Adjusted Gross Income). State tax rate in that bracket still should be nominal or zero depending on the state. Sales tax... things cost what they cost.  > Regardless, 70% of minimum wage isn't enough to cover a car, a child, a good vacation, a serious health care problem, an aging parent, or a modest retirement.  Social safety nets are impossible to address via a minimum wage. You could make the minimum wage $30/hr and some people will still become bankrupt by our ridiculous healthcare system. Why not lobby for single-payer healthcare and a universal basic income like $1000/mo/adult and $500/mo/child?


There is no issue whatsoever, getting a mortgage this way as an unmarried couple. This is very similar to what I did while my wife and I were engaged. We we're on the title as joint tenants. I would expect them to have her as a signee to the mortgage.  She won't be able to claim 50% ownership and make things hard on the lender. The title will be contingent on the mortgage being paid. What will be harder is if you guys decide to split. It's not at all uncommon for unmarried couples to buy a house together. Find a broker and get their advice.


The examples of debt in the article are about the ones who bought at around $100,000 years ago and then borrowed against the medallion as its value soared towards a million. This is like pretty much every bubble. Banks didn't place that level of debt on the owners, they foolishly loaned money to owners based on inflated values. Now both the banks and the owners are suffering the consequences of those bad loans as the values plummet.


"The Business Dictionary has three definitions of ""turnover"".  When it comes to share dealing, the most likely one is the total value of shares traded on the stock exchange in a given period."


"If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The ""random walk""/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH.  Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not.  is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit?  The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL."


"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have ""reserves"" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch.  Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k).  Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC.  But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment."


In some circumstances losses from self-employment can be offset against total income and/or capital gains. If this applies to you may be able to claim back some of the tax taken by PAYE from your day job.  You can also to some extent carry the loss backwards into previous tax years or forward into the next one if you can't use it fully this year. HMRC have some information available on the current rules: When you can claim losses  You can claim: But You can’t claim:


The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.


a. Depends on whether it is a gift (no tax, but need to file gift tax form against his lifetime exclusion) or a loan (in which case he needs to charge fair market interest, which he can forgive as a gift with no gift tax form, but for which will need to pay tax on the forgiven income. b. This is a definite possibility. Probably depends on the specific lender, but I would imagine this might be questioned, especially if there is an expectation of paying him back. c. Relationships. I would always avoid mixing family and finances in this way. Do you want your family gatherings to be tainted by owing him money? What if you fall on hard times? What if you go on a nice vacation instead of paying him back faster?


Account number are Unique based on the following combinations, based on manual banking practise of early days; -Country -Bank -Branch -Location -Account Number -Currency -Account Type [Savings, Checking] With the current computerization, there are quite a few items that have been coded into the number, for example Branch, Currency, Account Number and Account Type are part of account number.  Overall there are some attempts to standardize the account number so that they can be unique across the world as described as littleadv.


It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer - each.


A bridge loan (or bridging loan) is designed for exactly this circumstance. They're short-term loans (6 months is common) designed to help home-buyers to bridge the gap between buying and selling. MoneySupermarket defines them like this: Bridging loans are designed to help people complete the purchase of a property before selling their existing home by offering them short-term access to money at a high-rate of interest. As well as helping home-movers when there is a gap between the sale and completion dates in a chain, this type of loan can also help someone planning to sell-on quickly after renovating a home, or help someone buying at auction. Interest rates are very high, and there are likely to be fees, because you'll only need the loan for a short period. Here are some links to Canadian websites that explain more.


When I was contracting I wish I had joined a tax efficient umbrella organisation rather than just work as a sole trader. I also wish I had put money aside to pay my taxes rather than just spend it all. :(


Yes it is, one of the best private schools in the country is two miles down the road from me.  And it looks like a prison with a paint job and flowers in the windows.  I'd rather my kid learned on the street than the hyper paranoid security of what we call schools around here.


"Put Options for Kids: You have a big box of candy bars. You saved up your allowance to get a lot of them, so you could have one whenever you want one. But, you just saw a commercial on TV for a new toy coming out in one month. Your allowance alone won't buy it, and you want that toy more than you want the candy. So, you decide that you'll sell the candy to your friends at school to buy the toy. Now, you have a choice. You can sell the candy now, and put the money in your piggy bank to buy the toy later. Or, you can save the candy, and sell it in a month when you actually need the money to buy the toy. You know that if you sell all the candy you have today, you can get 50 cents a bar. That's not quite enough to buy the toy, but your allowance will cover the rest.  What you don't know is how much you might be able to sell the candy for in a month. You might be able to get 75 cents a bar. If you did, you could pay for the toy with just the money from the candy and even have some left over. But, you might only be able to sell them for 25 cents each, and you wouldn't have enough to buy the toy even with your allowance. You'd like to wait and see if you could get 75 cents each, but you don't want to risk getting only 25 cents each. So, you go to your father. He and his co-workers like these candy bars too, so he'd be willing to buy them all and sell them to his friends the way you're planning to do with yours. You ask for the option to sell him all the candy bars for 50 cents each in one month. If you find out you can get more for them at school, you want to be able to take that deal, but if you can't sell them for 50 cents at school, you'll sell them to your dad. Now, your dad knows that he could have the same problem selling the candy at 50 cents or more that you are afraid of. So, he offers a compromise. If you pay him $5 now, he'll agree to the deal. You figure that even without that $5, between your allowance and the candy money, you can still buy the toy. So, you take the deal.  In one month, you can offer the candy at school. If nobody will pay 50 cents, you can sell the candy to your dad when you get home, but if the kids at school will pay 50 cents or more, you can sell it all at school. Either way, you have enough money to buy the toy, and you can also choose which price to accept, but you had to pay your dad $5, and you can't get that back, so if it turns out that you can sell the candy at school for 50 cents, same as today, then because you paid the $5 you don't end up with as much as if you'd simply waited. In the financial market, this type of option is a ""put option"". Someone who owns something that's traded on the market, like a stock, can arrange to sell that stock to someone else at an agreed-on price, and the seller can additionally pay some money to the buyer up front for the option to not sell at that price. Now, if the stock market goes up, the seller lets the contract expire and sells his stock on the open market. If it goes down, he can exercise the option, and sell at the agreed-upon price to the buyer. If, however, the stock stays about the same, whether he chooses to sell or not, the money the seller paid for the option means he ends up with less than he would have if he hadn't bought the option. Call Options for Kids: Let's say that you see another ad on TV for another toy that you like, that was just released. You check the suggested retail price on the company's web site, and you see that if you save your allowance for the next month, you can buy it. But, in school the next day, everybody's talking about this toy, saying how they want one. Some already have enough money, others are saving up and will be able to get it before you can. You're afraid that because everyone else wants one, it'll drive up the price for them at the local store, so that your month's allowance will no longer buy the toy. So, you go to your dad again. You want to be able to use your allowance money for the next month to buy the new toy. You're willing to wait until you actually have the money saved up before you get the toy, but you need that toy in a month. So, you want your dad to buy one for you, and hold it until you can save up to buy it from him. But, you still want it both ways; if the price goes down in a month because the toy's not so new anymore and people don't want it, you don't want to spend your entire month's allowance buying the one from your dad; you just want to go to the store and buy one at the lower price. You'll pay him $5 for the trouble, right now, whether you buy the toy he got you or not. Your dad doesn't want to have a toy he's not using sitting around for a month, especially if you might not end up buying it from him, so he offers a different deal; In one month, if you still want it, he'll stop by the store on his way home and pick up the toy. You'll then reimburse him from the allowance you saved up; if it ends up costing less than a month's allowance, so be it, but if it costs more than that, you won't have to pay any more. This will only cost you $3, because it's easier for him. But, because he's not buying it now, there is a small chance that the item will be out of stock when he goes to buy it, and you'll have to wait until it's back in stock. You agree, on the condition that if you have to wait longer than a month for your toy, because he couldn't get one to sell you, he pays you back your $3 and knocks another $5 off the cost to buy the toy from him. The basic deal to buy something at an agreed price, with the option not to do so, is known as a ""call option"". Someone who wishes to buy some stocks, bonds or commodities at a future date can arrange a deal with someone who has what they want to buy them at a specific price. The buyer can then pay the seller for the option to not buy. The counter-offer Dad made, where he will buy the toy from the store at whatever price he can find it, then sell it to you for the agreed price, is known as a ""naked call"" in finance. It simply means that the seller, who is in this case offering the option to the buyer, doesn't actually have what they are agreeing to sell at the future date, and would have to buy it on the open market in order to turn around and sell it. This is typically done when the seller is confident that the price will go down, or won't go up by much, between now and the date of the contract. In those cases, either the buyer won't exercise the option and will just buy what they want on the open market, or they'll exercise the option, but the difference between what the seller is paying to buy the commodity on the market and what he's getting by selling it on contract is within the price he received for the option itself. If, however, the price of an item skyrockets, the seller now has to take a significant, real loss of money by buying something and then selling it for far less than he paid. If the item flat-out isn't available, the buyer is usually entitled to penalties for the seller's failure to deliver. If this is all understood by both parties, it can be thought of as a form of insurance."


From my own personal experience, you cannot trade spreads in RRSP or TFSA accounts in Canada. You can only buy options (buy a call or buy a put) or you can sell calls against your stock (covered call selling). You will not be able to sell naked options, or trade any type of spread or combo (calendars, condors, etc). I am not sure why these are the rules, but they are at least where I trade those accounts.


http://www.andrewsfcu.org/ is one of the only US financial institutions to issue a low or no annual fee chip and pin visa or mastercard.. Andrews is primarily for civilian employees of the Andrews Air Force Base but is available to members of the American Consumer Council, which offers free membership, see http://www.andrewsfcu.org/page.php?page=330 .  The chip and pin card is a visa with $0 annual fee and charges a 1% foreign transaction fee. Getting one is modestly difficult because you have to first join the credit union then apply for the card, then go through underwriting as if it were a personal loan rather than a revolving credit account.  Still, for travelers, it is probably worth it.