Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund.  An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments.  The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios.  Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities.  Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs.  Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund.  For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment).  Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER).  Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number.  For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral).  See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page.  Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF.  Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds.  Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free.  Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs.  Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.


"I suspect this is a function of deregulated banks' desire to write and flip as many mortgages as possible. The best targets for this sales push were naturally those with the most education, who tended to have the best credit ratings and most secure jobs.   The last time I bought a house, the mortgage salesman practically lit up when looking at my income and credit score, pushing me hard to borrow more. ""You could buy a lot more house than this!"" he said. ""You could buy apartments as an investment or for resale!""  I resisted temptation, thank heaven, but it's all too easy to see how millions of others didn't."


Google Finance portfolios take into account splits and cash deposits/withdrawals.


"People act like lawsuits are the end of the world, her suing shouldn't be considered a threat, it should be considered the accurate course of action to resolve contractual obligations. Of course, it would be convenient if she did nothing at all!  If you believe her real goal is to ""get it off her credit"", then have her come refinance with you. This will give you the opportunity to not have her on it and you to get different terms. Of course, if your credit still is poor then this option also exacerbates the inconvenience. None of the options sounds like they will ruin your credit (unless you are scrounging for cash through credit facilities to pay her off). You have several completely benign options available."


There is a funny story about that.  If you were visiting Apple and Jobs was taking you to lunch in the cafe - he would insist on paying.  Employees, get to checkout and have their badge scanned and the cost of the food is deducted from their paycheck.  So why did Steve always insist on treating for lunch?  He was enjoying all he (and guests) could eat for $1 a year.


"Summary: It's because you are effectively contributing more money in the second case, so you have more money at the end.  The effect of being covered by an employer retirement plan (in the case of a 401(k), that means either you or your employer contributed to it during the year) is that it prevents you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is below a very low level (for Single filing status, it phases out at an MAGI of between $62k and $72k). Since you are unable to deduct the Traditional IRA contribution, but you entered that you are still making the full $5500 contribution every year, that means you are making a non-deductible contribution of $5500 every year instead of a deductible contribution. Nondeductible contributions are ""after-tax"", whereas deductible contributions are ""pre-tax"" (because your taxable income is reduced by the amount of the contribution, so you effectively don't pay income tax on the income you used to contribute). $1 of pre-tax money is not the same as $1 of after-tax money. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, then $1 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $0.75 of after-tax money. However, since in both cases you are putting in the same nominal amount of contribution ($5500), but one is pre-tax and one is after-tax, in the after-tax case you are effectively contributing more money, i.e. more money is taken out from your bank account that year. The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater ""advantage"" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)"


There's a ton of great advice here.  It's very challenging to come up with something that hasn't already been suggested.  I'm curious to know how many years you have left to pay down the mortgage at the regular rate of payment.  If it's more than 15 years, it might be worthwhile to consider refinancing your mortgage to a shorter term (15 years or even 10 years if your income supports it).  Rates on fixed-interest mortgages at those terms are down in the 3% range and lower (at least according to bankrate.com).  Refinancing to a shorter term would be another way of paying off your home faster (with fewer of those dollars going toward interest payments). If you've got fewer than 15 years left to pay off your mortgage, following any of the other advice you've received here should keep you in great financial shape.


The value of a company is, simplified, the sum of the value of the equity and the value of the debt. There are some other things to add/subtract to that, but just think about those for now.  You could also say the value of a company is the value of its assets, or more precisely the value of the net cash flows those assets will generate in the future.  So let's say you want to start a company, so you want to buy some assets. Maybe you want to buy a $200 asset. Well, you only have $100, so you take out a loan (debt) for $100 for the remainder. You buy the asset and start generating income.  Let's say after a month you get bored and decide to sell the company. Let's assume the value of the assets hasn't changed. Your equity is worth $100, and you find a buyer who is willing to pay $100 for your company. Great! Right?  Well there's still the $100 loan you owe, so you have to pay that back. And suddenly you now have $0.   So in fact, you should have negotiated $200 with the buyer, because that's what the assets are actually worth. Then you can pay back the loan and still have the $100 in equity you deserve. (Alternatively, you could have negotiated the buyer to assume responsibility for the loan; same outcome for you.)  Did that help?


First, many banks do not keep the loan. Even if they send you a payment notice and process the monthly payment, there's still a good chance the loan itself was packed up and sold to investors. Collateralizing mortgages, in and of itself, is not inherently dangerous. But the loan definitely needs a house behind it. If you found a bank that keeps its loans, it would be a tough sell. You'd be asking them to trust that you've chosen the right number to match up with the house you intend to buy. And then they'd need to have another round of processing to turn this into a loan with normal collateral (i.e. put a lien on the house and tie them together.)


"This is an unfortunate situation for you.  You have zero chance at your question number 1, if someone was going to bend this rule for you it would have happened already.  The answer to question number 2 is pursue solution number 3. The overriding issue is that the IRS makes these rules, not the employer/plan sponsor or the administrator.  You can't talk the plan administrator in to reimbursing you, their system likely doesn't even have a function to do so. FSA timing issues can be complex and I think that's the root of your issue because when an expense can be incurred (date of service versus date of payment) and when a claim must be filed are different things. It's really common to bend the rules on when a claim is submitted, but not when it was incurred.   It's really common for an exiting employee to have 30 days to submit expenses for reimbursement.  FSA expenses must always be incurred within the specified plan year, or within your dates of employment if you weren't employed for the entire plan year, this is specified by the IRS.  It seems like some wires were crossed when you asked this question.  You were asking ""can I still incur claims"" and they were hearing ""how long do I have to submit an expense that has already been incurred."" Some plans allow COBRA continuation on FSA which generally does not make sense.  Your contributions to the plan would use after tax dollars but for folks who know they have an eligible expense coming it can make sense to continue via COBRA in retain your eligibility under the plan so you can incur a claim after your employment termination. Regarding number 3.  This sort of reimbursement would be outside the plan, no precedent is necessary.  You've gotten them to claim it was their mistake, they're going to reimburse you for their mistake, it has nothing to do with the FSA. Good luck."


Yes, if their record keeping is faulty or failed. It is best to keep all records of repayment.  Incomplete records such as signing for a loan yet no repayment receipt can be at least a headache and at most expensive. The most important document is a record of 0 balance then there is nothing that the courts will allow creditors to collect if their records are faulty.


A Credit Default Swap is a derivative, a financial contract with a value dependent upon another asset. A CDS, in essence, is exactly what it sounds like a swap upon default. The typical arrangement is that a holder of non-risk free credit enters into an arrangement with a counterparty to pay the counterparty a portion of the income received from the non-risk free credit in exchange for being able to force the counterparty to deliver risk free credit if the non-risk free credit defaults. Banks use this mechanism to reduce the risk of the loans they produce while packaging them to be resold to investors.  Banks will typically buy CDSes on mortgages and corporate bonds, paying part of the income from interest payments received, to have the right to force counterparties, typically hedge funds and insurance companies, to swap national Treasuries upon the event that the mortgages or corporates default.  The banks receive less income yet are able to take on more inventory to sell to investors so that more loans can be made to borrowers, households and corporations. Hedge funds typically take on more complex arrangements while insurance companies sell CDSes because they are usually overflowing with risk-free assets yet are starved for income.


">>Have enough funds to run the business and pay yourself the first year, plus 30%  >This is going to vary wildly depending on the particular business. So much so that a rule of thumb would be impossible to define.  Absolutely.  One of the things that varies ""widely"" is what amount constitutes the **""pay yourself the first year""** -- which will fall anywhere on a wide spectrum from the low end that is essentially below poverty level (someone young, used to living as we used\* to say ""like a college student"" -- needing only enough to cover a minimal ""survival"") to someone who has ridiculously extravagant needs (married with a family, McMansion mortgage and multiple ""new"" status vehicles, etc) that they expect to maintain -- and then the additional 30% grows in proportion *on top* of that subjective base figure.  \* I wrote ""used to say"" because we are talking about *back in the day* when ""living like a college student"" meant minimalist ""bare-bones"" needs, akin to a monastic/ascetic life: a shared small dorm/boarding house room with minimal furniture, NO partying, ZERO ""amenities"" (certainly no water parks with ""lazy rivers"", no ""food courts"", etc -- nothing like most US colleges and universities have today)."


You might need to check yes... but I would check out New York's nonresident income tax requirements... My guess is yes if you meet the requirements, but I am not an expert nor do I work in the accounting or legal field. Check out New York's nonresident tax page explaination


I'd not do business under these terms. A bill of sale needs a signature, right? Your signature is your word, and your word is your bond. I wouldn't participate in such a fraud, nor would I accept this sum of cash, who knows its origins?


I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him.  That's why you have to subtract 600-100.  At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:


Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).


You can only deduct (with the 2% AGI threshold) expenses that: You've actually incurred. I.e.: you actually paid for equipment or services provided and can show receipts for the payment. At the request of the employer. I.e.: you didn't just decide on your own to buy a new book or take a class, your employer told you to. With business necessity. I.e.: it was in order for you to do your job. And you were not reimbursed by your employer. I.e.: you went somewhere and spent your after tax money on something employer explicitly told you to pay for, and you didn't get reimbursed for that. From your story - these conditions don't hold for you. As I said in the comments - I strongly suggest you talk to a lawyer. Your story just doesn't make any sense, and I suspect your employer is doing something very fishy here.


"Fool's 13 steps to invest is a good starting point. Specifically, IFF all your credit cards are paid, and you made sure you've got no outstanding liabilities (that also accrues interest), stock indexes might be a good place for 5-10 years timeframes. For grad school, I'd probably look into cash ISA (or local equivalent thereof) -the rate of return is going to be lower, but having it in a separate account at least makes it mentally ""out of sight - out of mind"", so you can make sure the money's there WHEN you need it."


That would be lead to eveeel and wasteful litigation.  Youre basically making a pro contingency fee structure argument.  Those incentives exists in private rights of actions which have been whittled away.  Look at the result.


Pay to play in business is normal and completely ethical.  You want to be in the Yellow pages, you have to pay.   You want to be associated with an elite group of like businesses and share leads, you have to pay.   You want to be in the Chamber of Commerce, you have to pay.  There's tons of businesses that are in invite only groups that cost $10,000+ a year and $300 a month just for sharing leads and those leads are worth the cost.


Banks should be risk averse by default. They make loans to people and businesses after measuring their ability to repay.  After they approve a big project loan like an apartment building, they don't give all the money to the builders upfront. They give money as progress is made and they make sure the funds are not being used inappropriately. There's no reason they couldn't do all this while owning the project, but that would also open them to lawsuits later on if anything wasn't built to code. By keeping the project at arm's length, they avoid future liability.


In addition to all the other answers, here is a New Zealand Herald article from earlier this year about second mortgages, confirming that it is both legal and common in New Zealand.  Whether or not it is a good idea in your situation is another question.


IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value.  You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.


"I haven't dealt with this kind of thing in any way, but I found some quotes from IRS publications which I think are relevant and hopefully help. Your scenario sounds to me like a Qualified Tuition Reduction as described in Publication 970 Tax Benefits for Education. It appears the rules are different for graduate study as opposed to pre-graduate work, though I don't see anything about any dollar amount limit. There are various requirements and exceptions, so hopefully reading through that section of the publication can help you understand whether the benefit is supposed to be taxable. If taxable, it should show up on your W-2 like any other income: Any tuition reduction that is taxable should be included as wages on your Form W-2, box 1. Report the amount from Form W-2, box 1, on line 7 (Form 1040 or Form 1040A) or line 1 (Form 1040EZ).  It doesn't appear that there is any special designation or box for the tuition reduction as opposed to ""normal"" work, it just is income that's been earned like any other. If you need guidance on how much of the income is for ""normal"" work and how much is for the tuition reduction, you probably need to see if you can figure it out from her pay stubs, or contact the university's HR department. Well, looking through the credits I see in Publication 970, there appear to be two possible credits: The ""American opportunity credit"" section, under ""No double benefit allowed"", says things like (my emphasis added): You can't do any of the following.  ⋮ My understanding from reading through the section is that expenses are only excluded if they were tax-free, so that there can't be a double-dipping of benefits. If they're included as taxable income, I think they would count under your second interpretation, that the employer paid them like any other income, and your wife spent them as educational expenses just like other students, and they would qualify for educational credits. In fact, it explicitly states: Don't reduce qualified education expenses by amounts paid with funds the student receives as: Which sure sounds to me that anything that counts as W-2 Box 1 ""Wages"" would be payments received that then the expenses were logically paid separately from. The other credit, the ""Lifetime Learning Credit"", appears to use identical language (No double benefits; and don't reduce by wages). Obviously this is just from my looking through Publication 970; there may be more nuances here and for ""real"" advice you may want to speak more to the university HR department (who perhaps have dealt with this before) and/or a real tax advisor. You might also see if you can get any sort of a ""receipt"" or even a Form 1098-T from the university of what amount was paid on your wife's behalf, to help document it is truly that she was just paid more wages and spent them on classes as far as tax law is concerned."


"JoeTaxpayer nailed it.  Here's another way to look at it: Generally, we invest in something, then might leave it there for a few years, then take it out, but don't touch it in between.  In that case, to get the final amount X(N), we need to take the initial amount, then multiply by growth in the first year, then multiply by growth in the second year, etc. So, for three years, we have: X(3) = X(0) * G(1) * G(2) * G(3) = X(0) * ""average annual growth"" ^ 3 So, here, we see that we want the average annual growth to the power three equal to the product of the annual growth rates, thus, geometric mean: geometric mean = (G(1) * G(2) * G(3)) ^ (1/3) On the other hand, consider a situation where I have three investments X,Y,Z over one year. Now I have, after one year: X(1)+Y(1)+Z(1) = X(0)*G(1,X) + Y(0)*G(1,Y) + Z(0)*G(1,Z) = ( X(0)+Y(0)+Z(0) ) * ""average annual growth"" Now, in this case, if we assume X(0) = Y(0) = Z(0) = 1, i.e. I put equal amounts in each, we see that the average annual growth rate we want in this case is the arithmetic mean: arithmetic mean = (G(1,X) + G(1,Y) + G(1,Z)) / 3 (if we had unequal amounts at the beginning, it would be a weighted average). TL;DR:"


Banks want to be paid back, and if you don't, then want to be able to sell your property for enough money to cover what you didn't pay back. Your credit rating will determine the interest rate you pay, and this affects how much you can borrow because a higher interest rate means that you can borrow less on the same terms than you could with a lower interest rate. Paying 50% down will bring your payment way down, of course, and will improve everything about your loan (debt to income ratio, debt to equity) but you'll likely still be charged the higher interest rate based on your credit rating. This, of course, is contingent on the property's value appraising properly.


"You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like ""you don't need to pay anything"" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing ""business filed taxes"" with ""I filed schedule C"") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future."


It's still tax-deferred savings, unless the fees are terrible it's going to be better than investments that aren't tax deferred.


this piece offers a step-by-step guide you can use to get rid of errors in your annual credit report. it also tackles pointers you should always remember when writing a credit dispute letter. please tell your friends about it so that they might read it too!


I want to mention I've found 2 options for more powerful tools that can be used to manage asset allocation:  Advantages/Disadvantages: Vanguard Morningstar X-ray I hope this helps others struggling with asset allocation.


Is there any instance in which a large company whose corporate bonds are investment grade, find it more attractive to take out a bank loan to raise finance rather than underwrite bonds?   To my knowledge (I’m a first year at university so I’m not 100% sure) bonds are comparatively cheaper (lower effective interest rate), does not have the same caveats and regulations involved with usage of the loan (I.e. no need to buy insurance) and allow them to raise far more than most banks would be willing to risk (I know loan syndication exists but it’s still rare to my knowledge).   Why would a such a company have ANY bank loan debt whatsoever if issuing bonds are objectively better? The only one I can fathom is if the loan is so incredibly small that It’s more time consuming to underwrite bonds but 1.) I don’t know if that’s the case, 2.) Why would a large company do this if they could simply pay out less dividends and reinvest a slightly larger portion of profits?


Hang on... $963,100,000 revenue in US book sales, divided by 313,000,000 population gives... $3.07 spent per American per year on books, audiobooks and ebooks.   Somethings not right, these figures are clearly incorrect - and this IS meant to be entire consumption, not a sample.


"I don't think it really matters, my understanding is that as a sole trader there is no distinction between your personal and business tax affairs. The distinction between your personal and business account is mainly for your own personal benefit to make it easier to differentiate between ""wages"" and retained earnings. If you want to maintain this distinction with regard to tax then you need to somehow differentiate between tax paid on your ""wage"" and tax paid on retained earnings. You could then either make two payments, or pay from either and transfer the difference from the other. Either way, it's just a matter of perspective rather than something with a physical difference."


"There are a few reasons why an index mutual fund may be preferable to an ETF: I looked at the iShare S&P 500 ETF and it has an expense ratio of 0.07%.  The Vanguard Admiral S&P 500 index has an expense ratio of 0.05% and the Investor Shares have an expense ratio of 0.17%, do I don't necessarily agree with your statement ""admiral class Vanguard shares don't beat the iShares ETF""."


I have a CPA. They said that it isn't possible. However, I've seen on message boards that it indeed IS possible, multiple times. I'll likely reach out to another CPA. However, I am interested to hear from somebody who has done this before, so that I at least have a name or defined process for what I'm attempting to do.


"An option is a financial instrument instrument that gives you the right, but not the obligation, to do some transaction in the future at a given price. An employee stock option is a kind of ""call option"" -- it gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy the stock at a certain price (the ""exercise price"", usually set as the price of the stock when the option was granted). The idea is that you would ""exercise"" the option (buy the stock at the given price as provided by the option), if the value of the stock is higher than the exercise price, and not if it is lower. The option is gifted to you. But that does not mean you get any stock. If and when you choose to exercise the option, you would buy the stock with your own money. At what time you can exercise the option (and how many shares you can exercise at a given time) will be specified in the agreement. Usually, you can only exercise a particular share after it has ""vested"" (according to some vesting schedule), and you lose the ability to exercise after you no longer work for the company (plus perhaps a grace period), or after the option expires."


You're on the right track, and yes, that small difference is subject to income taxes. Do you use a payroll service? I do the same thing and use my payroll software to tweak the salary until the paycheck is just a few dollars every month (we run payroll once a month), with the rest going to the 401(k) and payroll taxes. So we're rounding up just a bit just so there's an actual paycheck with a positive number, and a bit does get withheld for fed/state income tax.  Also keep in mind you can make a company match. If your plan is a solo 401(k) with just you and your wife as the sole employees, consider the 25% match for both of you. The match is not subject to payroll taxes because it is a company expense. IRS web page: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/One-Participant-401(k)-Plans


"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by ""Bogleheads"", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually."


"Google for ""unclaimed funds"" You might need to do it for each state separately."


As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are  the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus  or longer.


You can receive funds from US Client as an individual. There is no legal requirement for you to have a company. If the transactions are large say more than 20 lacs in a year, its advisable to open a Private Ltd. Although its simple opening & Registering a company [A CA or a Laywer would get one at a nominal price of Rs 5000] you can do yourself. Whatever be the case, its advisable to have seperate accounts for this business / professional service transactions. Maintain proper records of the funds received. There are certain benefits you can claim, a CA can help you. Paying taxes in Advance is your responsibility and hence make sure you keep paying every quarter as advance tax. Related questions Indian citizen working from India as freelancer for U.S.-based company. How to report the income & pay tax in India? Freelancer in India working for Swiss Company Freelancing to UK company from India How do I account for money paid to colleagues out of my professional income?


Buy a home. A home is the first and best investment, u can own a home with as little as 3% down and as u pay for your living u pay it off.....also banks will always give you equity loans in case you need your money


Depending on your income, you may owe AMT instead of the taxes from the regular code.  Even if you don't do that, you may hit the place where you have to at least check if you owe AMT. As you probably know, AMT was established early on to catch the wealthiest of tax payers who were able to use various loop holes in the code to pay much less tax than one would expect.  Over time the limits on AMT have not risen with the rising wage gap, and AMT catches an increasing number of tax payers each year.  If the limit is not raised at all for 2010 then it will catch even more people this year.   AMT has worked it's way into the upper-middle class fairly solidly, especially if you exercise stock options whose strike price is significantly different than the current sale price.


Why do all this work yourself? Pay a modest price to have a professional do this for you. Look at the tickers PUTX, PUTW.


A USD bank draft from any of the major Canadian banks is a good solution. They clear quickly in the U.S. I use them frequently and have never had a problem depositing them in a U.S. bank account.  If you carry more than $10k across the border, even as a cheque, be sure to declare it.


That actually sheds some useful light on the whole matter. As long as $client gets the paperwork in order, all will likely be well.   Had a discussion with $client today about their recurring practices, just to establish a baseline for their understanding of the same. Not because I know there is or is not a concern, but because their business is risk management and that is a risk worth managing. Or at least worth understanding the scope of the risk and potential exposure.


There are not as many options here as you fear. If you have no other investments outside this 401K it is even easier. Outside accounts include IRA, Roth IRA, taxable investments (mutual funds, ETF, individual stocks), Employee stock purchase plans. Amount: make sure you put enough in to get all the company match. I assume that in your case the 9% will do so, but check your documents. The company match will be with pre-tax funds.  Roth vs Regular 401K? Most people in their lifetime will need a mix of Roth and Regular retirement accounts. You need to determine if it is better for you to pay the tax on your contributions now or later. Which accounts? If you are going to invest in a target date fund, you can ignore the rest of the options. The target date fund is a mixture of investments that will change over the decades. Calculate which one fits your expected retirement date and go with it. If you want to be able to control the mix, then you will need to pick several funds. The selection depends on what non-401K investments you have. Now here is what I considered the best advice.  Decide Roth or regular, and just put the money into the most appropriate target date fund with the Roth/regular split you want. Then after the money starts flowing into your account, research the funds involved, the fees for those funds, and how you want to invest. Then move the money into the funds you want. Don't waste another day deciding how to invest. Just get started. The best part of a 401K, besides the match, is that you can move money between funds without worrying about taxes. If you realize that you want to put extra emphasis on the foreign stocks, or Mid-cap; just move the funds and redirect future contributions.


"Someone has to hand out cash to the seller. Even if no physical money changes hands (and I've bought a house; I can tell you a LOT of money changes hands at closing in at least the form of a personal check), and regardless of exactly how the bank accounts for the actual disbursement of the loan, the net result is that the buyer has cash that they give the seller, and are now in debt to the bank for least that amount (but, they now have a house). Now, the bank probably didn't have that money just sitting in its vault. Money sitting in a vault is money that is not making more money for the bank; therefore most banks keep only fractionally more than the percentage of deposit balances that they are required to keep by the Feds. There are also restrictions on what depositors' money can be spent on, and loans are not one of them; the model of taking in money in savings accounts and then loaning it out is what caused the savings and loan collapse in the 80s. So, to get the money, it turns to investors; the bank sells bonds, putting itself in debt to bond holders, then takes that money and loans it out at a higher rate, covering the interest on the bond and making itself a tidy profit for its own shareholders. Banks lose money on defaults in two ways. First, they lose all future interest payments that would have been made on the loan. Technically, this isn't ""revenue"" until the interest is calculated for each month and ""accrues"" on the loan; therefore, it doesn't show on the balance sheet one way or the other. However, the holders of those bonds will expect a return, and the banks no longer have the mortgage payment to cover the coupon payments that they themselves have to pay bondholders, creating cash flow problems. The second, and far more real and damaging, way that banks lose money on a foreclosure is the loss of collateral value. A bank virtually never offers an unsecured ""signature loan"" for a house (certainly not at the advertised 3-4% interest rates). They want something to back up the loan, so if you disappear off the face of the earth they have a clear claim to something that can help them recover their money. Usually, that's the house itself; if you default, they get the house from you and sell it to recover their money. Now, a major cause of foreclosure is economic downturn, like the one we had in 2009 and are still recovering from. When the economy goes in the crapper, a lot of things we generally consider ""stores of value"" lose that value, because the value of the whatzit (any whatzit, really) is based on what someone else would pay to have it. When fewer people are looking to buy that whatzit, demand drops, bringing prices with it. Homes and real estate are one of the real big-ticket items subject to this loss of value; when the average Joe doesn't know whether he'll have a job tomorrow, he doesn't go house-hunting. This average Joe may even be looking to sell an extra parcel of land or an income property for cash, increasing supply, further decreasing prices. Economic downturn can often increase crime and decrease local government spending on upkeep of public lands (as well as homeowners' upkeep of their own property). By the ""broken window"" effect, this makes the neighborhood even less desirable in a vicious cycle. What made this current recession a double-whammy for mortgage lenders is that it was caused, in large part, by a housing bubble; cheap money for houses made housing prices balloon rapidly, and then when the money became more expensive (such as in sub-prime ARMs), a lot of those loans, which should never have been signed off on by either side, went belly-up. Between the loss of home value (a lot of which will likely turn out to be permanent; that's the problem with a bubble, things never recover to their peak) and the adjustment of interest rates on mortgages to terms that will actually pay off the loan, many homeowners found themselves so far underwater (and sinking fast) that the best financial move for them was to walk away from the whole thing and try again in seven years. Now the bank's in a quandary. They have this loan they'll never see repaid in cash, and they have this home that's worth maybe 75% of the mortgage's outstanding balance (if they're lucky; some homes in extremely ""distressed"" areas like Detroit are currently trading for 30-40% of what they sold for just before the bubble burst). Multiply that by, say, 100,000 distressed homes with similar declines in value, and you're talking about tens of billions of dollars in losses. On top of that, the guarantor (basically the bank's insurance company against these types of losses) is now in financial trouble themselves, because they took on so many contracts for debt that turned out to be bad (AIG, Fannie/Freddie); they may very well declare bankruptcy and leave the bank holding the bag. Even if the guarantor remains solvent (as they did thanks to generous taxpayer bailouts), the bank's swap contract with the guarantor usually requires them to sell the house, thus realizing the loss between what they paid and what they finally got back, before the guarantor will pay out. But nobody's buying houses anymore, because prices are on their way down; the only people who'd buy a house now versus a year from now (or two or three years) are the people who have no choice, and if you have no choice you're probably in a financial situation that would mean you'd never be approved for the loan anyway. In order to get rid of them, the bank has to sell them at auction for pennies on the dollar. That further increases the supply of cheap homes and further drives down prices, making even the nicer homes the bank's willing to keep on the books worth less (there's a reason these distresed homes were called ""toxic assets""; they're poisonous to the banks whether they keep or sell them). Meanwhile, all this price depression is now affecting the people who did everything right; even people who bought their homes years before the bubble even formed are watching years of equity-building go down the crapper. That's to say nothing of the people with prime credit who bought at just the wrong time, when the bubble was at its peak. Even without an adjusting ARM to contend with, these guys are still facing the fact that they paid top dollar for a house that likely will not be worth its purchase price again in their lifetime. Even with a fixed mortgage rate, they'll be underwater, effectively losing their entire payment to the bank as if it were rent, for much longer than it would take to have this entire mess completely behind them if they just walked away from the whole thing, moved back into an apartment and waited it out. So, these guys decide on a ""strategic default""; give the bank the house (which doesn't cover the outstanding balance of course) and if they sue, file bankruptcy. That really makes the banks nervous; if people who did everything right are considering the hell of foreclosure and bankruptcy to be preferable to their current state of affairs, the bank's main threat keeping people in their homes is hollow. That makes them very reluctant to sign new mortgages, because the risk of default is now much less certain. Now people who do want houses in this market can't buy them, further reducing demand, further decreasing prices... You get the idea. That's the housing collapse in a nutshell, and what banks and our free market have been working through for the past five years, with only the glimmer of a turnaround picking up home sales."


If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.


"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them.  They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%.  However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years.  Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan.  Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested.  If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind.  So the new employer might offer to ""buy out"" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now.  You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed.  So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank.  Each December you receive a performance bonus.  Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M.  It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus.  You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer.  A competing employer may offer to ""buy you out"" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there).  You might negotiate with them and say ""I'm on track for $2M this year"", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer.  By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer.  Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation."


I would do a Roth Conversion and put it at the same place where the rest of your Roth funds are before withdrawing it.


An aim of the government to fetch out all the illegal financial dealings which has been deleted or de-activated more than 11.44 lakh permanent account numbers (PANs) as of 27th of July in cases where multiple numbers were found allotted to one person.


You've got two options.  Deduct the business portion of the depreciation and actual expenses for operating the car.  Use the IRS standard mileage rate of $.575/mile in 2015. Multiply your business miles by the rate to calculate your deduction.  Assuming you're a sole proprietor you'll include a Schedule C to your return and claim the deduction on that form.


"Written with some mild snark , but no insult intended, because financial stuff can be ridiculously confusing... Looked at another way, you're basically asking if the Biblical ""Parable of the Talents"" can be implemented as a business model.  You as the investor wish to be the ""master"", with the entity doing the investing playing the part of the ""servant"". Since the law prohibits actual servitude as described in scripture, the model must substitute a contractual profit- and loss-sharing scheme. OK, based on what you've proposed, and by way of example, let's say you invested a thousand dollars. You give the investment service your money. At the end of a year, they give you back   - Your capital ($1000)  - Plus 1/2 of any profits  OR  - Less 1/2 of any losses So let's say the worst happens and they lose ALL of it. According to your proposal, they have to cover 1/2 of the loss. You end up with $500...but they end up with LESS than nothing. They will be in a deficit situation because all the expense was theirs. They don't just fail to make a profit. They go in the hole. It doesn't matter what percentages you use. Regardless of how the loss is shared, you've only guaranteed YOU can't lose all your money. The company CAN. Given a large enough investment, or enough market fluctuation, a big shared loss could shut down a smaller firm. To summarize:   - You want a service that charges you nothing   - Does all the work of expertly managing and investing your capital  - Takes on part of the risk you would normally bear  - (on top of their usual risk and liability)  - Agrees to do so solely for a percentage of any return (where higher returns will likely involve a higher degree of risk)  - AND that guarantees, after just 1 year, you'll get X% of your capital back, no matter what. Win or lose.  - Even if the market crashes and all your capital, and theirs, is wiped out Superbest, um, to be serious briefly: what you're proposing is, if nothing else, inherently unfair and inequitable. I believe you intended it as a mutually beneficial scenario, but the real-world imbalance in risk and reward prevents it being so. Any financial service that would accept those terms along with the extra degree of risk would be fiscally irresponsible. From a business standpoint it's an untenable model, and no company would build on it. It would be tantamount to corporate suicide. The requirement that a service promise to give you back X% of your money, no matter how great the loss, makes your proposal impossible. You need to think about how much all this costs, realistically, as well what kind of returns you can actually expect. And that more risk for higher return is exactly what a service could NOT take a chance on if it had to ""share"" investors' losses. Besides, it's not really sharing, now is it? They will always lose more than you, always end up in a negative situation, unable even to recoup costs. Circumstances beyond their control could result in a drop in the value that not only wipes out any profit, but requires them to pay YOU for work performed and expenses incurred on your behalf.  Why would they let anyon double-dip like that? Yeah, we all prefer getting something for nothing...but you want valuable services and for them to pay you money for the privilege of providing them? I totally agree that would be fantastic, but in this world even ""free"" doesn't come cheap anymore. And getting back to costs:  Without consistent income the service would have nowhere to work and no resources to work with. No office, computer, phone, electricity, Internet, insurance, payroll, licensing, training, maintenance, security, lobbying, etc., etc., etc. Why do people always forget overhead? There's a reason these services operate the way they do. Even the best are working with fairly slim margins in a volatile sector. They're not into 1-year gambles unlikely to cover their cost of doing business, or having to pay for a negative return out of their own pocket. Look, if you're the Biblical master asking your servant to manage things, overhead is built-in. You're taking all the risk as well. You're paying for all three servants' food, home, clothing, etc, plus you had to buy the servants themselves. So its reasonable that you reap the reward of their labor. You paid for it, and you didn't even punish the servant who buried your money in a hole. The two good servants may have done the legwork, but you took on the burden of everything else. In your proposed service, however, contrary to the servant's usual role, the servant - i.e., the company - would be assuming a portion of your risk on top of their own, yet without any guarantee of profit, income, or even coverage of costs. They're also subject to regulations, fees, liability, legal stuff, etc. that you're not, against most of which you are indemnified and held harmless. If they agree to cover a share of your loss, it exposes to greater liability and more related risk. It robs them of resources they need to  invest in their own business, while at the same time forcing them to do all the work. As a result, your model doesn't give such a service a fighting chance. Getting it off the ground and lasting past the first-year payouts would require more luck than skill.  They'd be better off heading to Vegas and the blackjack table, where the only overhead is a cheap flight and room, where the odds and rules don't change overnight, and they at least get free drinks. If none of the equivalents satisfies, then the Biblical parable appears to describe your only option for obtaining exactly what you want: Move to a country where slavery is legal and buy an investor  :-) Cheers, c"


From what I read, if the monthly average of the stock falls below 1 dollar, it can be delisted from the NYSE, which of course means you lose everything.  I've been playing this same stock on a day by day basis.  Twice I've finished up 15% on the day, with AMR, but  I don't plan on being able to do this for much longer though.  I dumped it all today just in case they decide to remove it this weekend.


This serves as very crucial for the new business manager who is not adept in prospecting the outcomes and for whom, the passages are new! A minor mistake on his part could plunge the whole new venture into the backlash mode which could be potentially dangerous!For More Info:- http://www.startupmentor.co.in/


This amazing site will answer all your data questions. You will need some patience and willingness to spend to get the data that you want. A lot of data is available for free too` https://www.quandl.com/


"You have actually asked several questions, so I think what I'll do is give you an intuition about risk-neutral pricing to get you started.  Then I think the answer to many of your questions will become clear. Physical Probability There is some probability of every event out there actually occurring, including the price of a stock going up.  That's what we call the physical probability.  It's very intuitive, but not directly useful for finding the price of something because price is not the weighted average of future outcomes.   For example, if you have a stock that is highly correlated with the market and has 50% chance of being worth $20 dollars tomorrow and a 50% chance of being worth $10, it's value today is not $15.  It will be worth less, because it's a risky stock and must earn a premium.  When you are dealing with physical probabilities, if you want to compute value you have to take the probability-weighted average of all the prices it could have tomorrow and then add in some kind of compensation for risk, which may be hard to compute. Risk-Neutral Probability Finance theory has shown that instead of computing values this way, we can embed risk-compensation into our probabilities.  That is, we can create a new set up ""probabilities"" by adjusting the probability of good market outcomes downward and increasing the probability of bad market outcomes.  This may sound crazy because these probabilities are no longer physical, but it has the desirable property that we then use this set of probabilities to price of every asset out there: all of them (equity, options, bonds, savings accounts, etc.).  We call these adjusted probabilities that risk-neutral probabilities.  When I say price I mean that you can multiply every outcome by its risk-neutral probability and discount at the risk-free rate to find its correct price.    To be clear, we have changed the probability of the market going up and down, not our probability of a particular stock moving independent of the market.  Because moves that are independent of the market do not affect prices, we don't have to adjust the probabilities of them happening in order to get risk-neutral probabilities. Anyway, the best way to think of risk-neutral probabilities is as a set of bogus probabilities that consistently give the correct price of every asset in the economy without having to add a risk premium. If we just take the risk-neutral probability-weighted average of all outcomes and discount at the risk-free rate, we get the price.  Very handy if you have them. Risk-Neutral Pricing We can't get risk-neutral probabilities from research about how likely a stock is to actually go up or down.  That would be the physical probability.  Instead, we can figure out the risk-neutral probabilities from prices. If a stock has only two possible prices tomorrow, U and D, and the risk-neutral probability of U is q, then Price = [ Uq + D(1-q) ] / e^(rt) The exponential there is just discounting by the risk-free rate.  This is the beginning of the equations you have mentioned.  The main thing to remember is that q is not the physical probability, it's the risk-neutral one.  I can't emphasize that enough.  If you have prespecified what U and D can be, then there is only one unknown in that equation: q. That means you can look at the stock price and solve for the risk neutral probability of the stock going up.   The reason this is useful is that you can same risk-neutral probability to price the associated option.  In the case of the option you don't know its price today (yet) but you do know how much money it will be worth if the stock moves up or down.  Use those values and the risk-neutral probability you computed from the stock to compute the option's price.  That's what's going on here.  To remember: the same risk-neutral probability measure prices everything out there.  That is, if you choose an asset, multiply each possibly outcome by its risk-neutral probability, and discount at the risk-free rate, you get its price.  In general we use prices of things we know to infer things about the risk-neutral probability measure in order to get prices we do not know."


The amount of the income taxes you will owe depends upon how much income you have, after valid business expenses, also it will depend upon your filing status as well as the ownership form of your business and what state you live in.  That said, you will need to be sure to make the Federal 1040ES quarterly prepayments of your tax on time or there will be penalties. You also must remember that you will be needing to file a schedule SE with your 1040.  That is for the social security taxes you owe, which is in addition to your income taxes. With an employer/employee situation, the FICA withhoding you have seen on your paycheck are matched by the same payment by your employer.  Now that you are self-employed you are responcible for your share and the employer share as well; in this situation it is known as self-employment tax.  the amount of it will be the same as your share of FICA and half of the employer's share of FICA taxes.  If you are married and your wife also is working self-employed, then she will have to files herown schedule SE along with yours.  meaning that you will pay based on your business income and she will pay baed on hers. your 1040Es quarterly prepayment must cover your income tax and your combined (yours and hers) Self Employment taxes.  Many people will debate on the final results of the results of schedule SE vrs an employee's and an employer's payments combined.  If one were to provides a ball park percentage that would likely apply to you final total addition to your tax libility as a result of needing schedule SE would tend to fluctuate depending upon your total tax situation; many would debate it.  It has been this way since, I first studied and use this schedule decades ago.  For this reason it is best for you to review these PDF documents, Form 1040 Schedule SE Instructions and Form 1040 Schedule SE. As for your state income taxes, it will depend on the laws of the state you are based in.


You tagged with S-Corp, so I assume that you have that tax status.  Under that situation, you don't get taxed on distributions regardless of what you call them.  You get taxed on the portion of the net income that is attributable to you through the Schedule K that the S-Corp should distribute to you when the S-Corp files its tax return.  You get taxed on that income whether or not it's distributed. If you also work for the small business, then you need to pay yourself a reasonable wage.  The amount that you distribute can be one factor in determining reasonableness.  That doesn't seem to be what you asked, but it is something to consider.


"This is not a full answer and I have no personal finance experience. But I have a personal story as I did this. As Vicky stated Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time   buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of   those schemes in the future. I did this for my dad when I was 16 or so. I am in Canada and lost $5,000 first time buyers tax rebate. As long as many other bonuses like using your rsps for your first home. I also am having a fair amount of trouble getting a credit card, because even though I am only a part member of the mortgage they expect you to be able to cover the whole thing. So when the banks look at my income of say $3000 a month they say ""3000 - rent(500) - mortgage(3000)"" You make $-500 a month. I then explain that I do not actually pay the mortage so it is not coming out of my paycheck. They do not care. I am responsible for full payments and they consider it used."


There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people.  Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes.  Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward.  (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much).


"This model would work fine under a couple of assumptions: that market interest rates never change, and that the borrower will surely make all the payments as agreed.  But neither of those assumptions are realistic. Suppose Alice loans $1,000,000 to Bob at 4% under the terms you describe.  Bob chooses to make interest-only payments of $40,000 per year. Some time later, prevailing interest rates go up to 10%.  Now Alice would really like Bob to repay the entire principal as quickly as possible, because that money could be earning her $100,000 per year instead of only $40,000, but under the contract she has no way to force Bob to do so.  And Bob has no incentive to repay any of the principal, because he can earn more interest on it than he has to pay to Alice.  So Alice is not going to be very happy about this. You might say, but at least Alice is only losing ""potential"" money; she's still turning a profit of $10,000 per year, since her bank only charges her 3% interest.  Ah, but you're assuming that Alice can get a bank loan with a rate of 3% fixed forever.  The bank doesn't want to make such a loan either, for exactly the same reasons. So in practice, any loan like this would be expected to have a variable interest rate. There's a flip side, too.  Suppose instead that market rates drop to 1%.  Now Alice would like Bob to repay the principal as slowly as possible, because she's earning 4% on that money, which is better than any other options available to her.  But Bob now has every incentive to repay it as fast as he can - or even to refinance by taking out another loan at, say, 2%, and using the proceeds to repay the entire principal to Alice.  (This risk still applies with most traditional loans, since the borrower usually always has the right to pay early, but some loans include a ""prepayment penalty"" in such cases to help compensate the lender.) Thus, when Bob has all the power to decide when to pay, Alice is sure to lose no matter which way interest rates move.  A loan with a fixed term helps insulate Alice against this risk.  She may be able to make a guess about the likelihood of interest rates going up to 10% in the next 15 or 30 years, and increase Bob's fixed rate to account for this; that's much easier than trying to account for the possibility of interest rates going up to 10% ever.  (And if she does have to try to account for this, she's probably going to have to set the interest rate extremely high; so Bob might accept a fixed term of repayment in exchange for a more reasonable rate.) Even if we suppose that Alice has done the best possible credit check and that Bob is a perfectly trustworthy fellow who would never dream of defaulting on his loan, catastrophes do happen.  Maybe Bob is robbed of all his money by an evil accountant, or has a mid-life crisis and spends it all on opera tickets.  Whatever, Bob is now bankrupt and Alice is never going to get her principal back, nor any further interest payments either.  Even if the loan is secured by some collateral, there's still a risk since the collateral might lose value.  Alice has some chance of estimating the risk of this happening in the next 15 or 30 years, and can set the interest rate to compensate for it.  But it is harder for her to estimate the risk of this happening ever, and if she tries, she'll have to set the rate so high that Bob might prefer a fixed term and a lower rate. (There's a side issue as to what happens if Bob dies with the loan still outstanding.  If it's an unsecured loan, typically Alice can try to collect the principal from Bob's estate, but if there isn't enough, too bad for Alice; she can't force Bob's heirs to continue making payments.  If it's a secured loan, Alice may be able to have Bob's heirs continue paying or else she seizes the collateral; but she still has the risk of the collateral losing value.)"


There isn't really a correct answer. The 1 year beta will capture any recent changes in the firm's business, but it is estimated less accurately due to fewer data points. But a beta of 0.22 for a distressed firm is very suspicious, since we would expect the stock to be more risky, not less.


> At what price is the slow customer sending the order? Or are they sending a market order?  So if the high frequency fund sees someone wants to meet the ask at 1.01 they'll push that person back in favor of executing their trade first. They'll then raise the price to 1.02 (that's high though) and make the other person pay that. This happens literally in microseconds.


"In essence the problem that the OP identified is not that the FX market itself has poor liquidity but that retail FX brokerage sometimes have poor counterparty risk management. The problem is the actual business model that many FX brokerages have. Most FX brokerages are themselves customers of much larger money center banks that are very well capitalized and provide ample liquidity. By liquidity I mean  the ability to put on a position of relatively decent size (long EURUSD say) at any particular time with a small price impact relative to where it is trading. For spot FX, intraday bid/ask spreads are extremely small, on the order of fractions of pips for majors (EUR/USD/GBP/JPY/CHF). Even in extremely volatile situations it rarely becomes much larger than a few pips for positions of 1 to 10 Million USD equivalent notional value in the institutional market. Given that retail traders rarely trade that large a position, the FX spot market is essentially very liquid in that respect. The problem is that there are retail brokerages whose business model is to encourage excessive trading in the hopes of capturing that spread, but not guaranteeing that it has enough capital to always meet all client obligations. What does get retail traders in trouble is that most are unaware that they are not actually trading on an exchange like with stocks. Every bid and ask they see on the screen the moment they execute a trade is done against that FX brokerage, and not some other trader in a transparent central limit order book. This has some deep implications. One is the nifty attribute that you rarely pay ""commission"" to do FX trades unlike in stock trading. Why? Because they build that cost into the quotes they give you. In sleepy markets, buyers and sellers cancel out, they just ""capture"" that spread which is the desired outcome when that business model functions well.  There are two situations where the brokerage's might lose money and capital becomes very important. In extremely volatile markets, every one of their clients may want to sell for some reason, this forces the FX brokers to accumulate a large position in the opposite side that they have to offload. They will trade in the institutional market with other brokerages to net out their positions so that they are as close to flat as possible. In the process, since bid/ask spreads in the institutional market is tighter than within their own brokerage by design, they should still make money while not taking much risk. However, if they are not fast enough, or if they do not have enough capital, the brokerage's position might move against them too quickly which may cause them lose all their capital and go belly up. The brokerage is net flat, but there are huge offsetting positions amongst its clients. In the example of the Swiss Franc revaluation in early 2015, a sudden pop of 10-20% would have effectively meant that money in client accounts that were on the wrong side of the trade could not cover those on the other side. When this happens, it is theoretically the brokerage's job to close out these positions before it wipes out the value of the client accounts, however it would have been impossible to do so since there were no prices in between the instantaneous pop in which the brokerage could have terminated their client's losing positions, and offload the risk in the institutional market. Since it's extremely hard to ask for more money than exist in the client accounts, those with strong capital positions simply ate the loss (such as Oanda), those that fared worse went belly up. The irony here is that the more leverage the brokerage gave to their clients, the less money would have been available to cover losses in such an event. Using an example to illustrate: say client A is long 1 contract at $100 and client B is short 1 contract at $100. The brokerage is thus net flat. If the brokerage had given 10:1 leverage, then there would be $10 in each client's account. Now instantaneously market moves down $10. Client A loses $10 and client B is up $10. Brokerage simply closes client A's position, gives $10 to client B. The brokerage is still long against client B however, so now it has to go into the institutional market to be short 1 contract at $90. The brokerage again is net flat, and no money actually goes in or out of the firm. Had the brokerage given 50:1 leverage however, client A only has $2 in the account. This would cause the brokerage close client A's position. The brokerage is still long against client B, but has only $2 and would have to ""eat the loss"" for $8 to honor client B's position, and if it could not do that, then it technically became insolvent since it owes more money to its clients than it has in assets. This is exactly the reason there have been regulations in the US to limit the amount of leverage FX brokerages are allowed to offer to clients, to assure the brokerage has enough capital to pay what is owed to clients."


Elance, UpWork, Fivver  Who would've thought taking skilled labor and watering down the price to mere pennies would be bad for everybody involved?  That's why, even though I operate just like a freelancer, I incorporated. Legally, I'm a sole proprietor, not a freelancer...aside the few tax differences, it just saves me a ton of headaches.


Have you considered investing in real estate? Property is cheap now and you have enough money for several properties. The income from tenants could be very helpful. If you find it's not for you, you can also sell your property and recover your initial investment, assuming house prices go up in the next few years.


The average of a dozen good answers is close to what would be right, the wisdom of crowds. But any one answer will be skewed by one's own opinions.  The question is missing too much detail. I look at $400K as $16K/yr of ongoing withdrawals. How much do you make now? When the kids are all in school full time, can your wife work? $400K seems on the low side to me, especially with 3 kids. How much have you saved for college?  The $150K for your wife is also a bit low. Without a long tangent on the monetary value of the stay at home spouse, what will you spent on childcare if she passes?  Term life also has a expiration date. When my daughter was born, my wife and I got 20 year term. She is now 16, her college account fully funded, and we are semi-retired. The need for insurance is over. If one of us dies, the survivor doesn't need this big of a house, and will have more than they need to be comfortable in a downsized one. My belief is that the term value should bridge the gap to the kids getting through college and the spouse getting resettled. Too much less, I'd have left my wife at risk. Too much more, she'd be better off if I were dead. (I say that half joking, the insurance company will often limit the size policy to something reasonable.)


"Certainly, there aren't algorithms lying in wait for me to enter a buy order for a couple thousand dollars worth of APPL. However, anybody that has a pension plan or a 401k gets shaved by predatory HFT. This is the majority of *ordinary investors*. Most of the population doesn't trade in individual stocks. The ones that have their investments managed by large funds are most certainly affected. Katsayuma's dissection of the underlying mechanisms makes that abundantly clear. I can understand why those with a financial stake attempt to discredit Katsuyama, but it's fairly transparent bullshit. Bullshit that ""you seem to have been suckered in"" by."


Thanks. It has taken me some time to understand how all this works, and there are still many gray areas I want to understand further.  The Fed interest rate is the rate charged by banks to loan to each other to balance overnight reserves but only using the reserves they hold at the Fed. That adds no new money to the system, but increases the money multiplier a little since perhaps more loans can be made.   Basically one bank with excess reserves can loan to another bank that needs reserves. The Fed injects no money here, only sets the rate for banks to do this with each other.  When the Fed buys securities that effectively adds that many more dollars into circulation, which then gets hit by the money multiplier, adding a lot of new liquidity.  I think historically the latter tracks increases in the money supply much better than the former. I think the St. Louis Fed has records online for all this dating back to the 1940's or so.


Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades   than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees   you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads.  Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years.  Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin   with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just   obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary.  These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.


"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices.  From an investors point of view, this is not important.  What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage.  In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%.  Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the ""compare"" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500.  You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds.  Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing."


I think JohnFx's answer is pretty much the right thing to do. I'd just like to suggest that the budget doesn't have to be fixed. It sounds like you aren't completely sure what an acceptable lifestyle costs for you, and it might feel like a budget locks you into a spending pattern that could end up being unfulfilling, or keep you in debt longer than necessary. To reduce that risk, you could start with a very easy level of contributions, then every month see if you can spend $10-$50 less without sacrificing in the lifestyle department. And eventually if you feel like you're missing out, you can stick with the previous month's budget. You might avoid depriving yourself by starting with something easy, but I think if you make an effort to save money, you'll more likely be surprised how much you can improve your lifestyle while spending less. I like a lot of the advice on Mr. Money Mustache and Early Retirement Extreme, and I'd recommend the introductory sections of both blogs if you ever hit a block at some level of contribution. And one minor (highly situational) comment: You mentioned having less to save if you contribute more, but if you have high interest loans, paying them down early can be (pretty much) a guaranteed very high ROI. So while you might want to prioritize an emergency fund and maybe an employer match first, most saving will probably be less useful than extra contributions.


You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can.   Maybe you can take out a home equity loan?  You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans.  You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k).  There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.


In most markets, there are fixed fees known as commissions. For instance, with a retail broker in the stock market, you can expect every trade to cost you $7.00 as an example, it is $7.00 regardless of if you place a trade for $25 or $25,000. You will see that just opening the trade, with a smaller amount, will eat up all of your profits and a majority of your capital, but if you opened the trade with more capital through the investment group, then the $7.00 commission will be much less of a tax on your trade. Basically, the only advantage is that the tax of commissions will be less if you have a larger account, if the commission is a fixed dollar value, which is not always true either. regardless, at $25 per month, not many markets will be accessible. There is also the possible educational aspect of investing with a group of people, or it can simply be clashing ideals.


There are quite a few advantages to credit cards in the uk. But don't borrow on them past the grace period. Set up a direct debit to pay amount in full.


"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online.  Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure.  Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers.  It was time consuming but not really that hard.  I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator.  Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are ""taxed on profits"" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter."


Just to support this, I'm working in front-office equities right now and this describes us pretty well. We have a pretty open set-up, but still with waist-high cubicles. Our traders are only about 6m away from my desk though, so it's not always that quiet.  FI people are scary, I don't go over there.


"Well, the first one is based on the ""Pert"" formula for continuously-compounded present value, while the second one is the periodically-compounded variant.  Typically, the continuously-compounded models represent the ideal; as the compounding period of time-valued money shrinks towards zero, and the discount rate (or interest rate if positive) stays constant over the time period examined, the periodic equation's results approach that of the continuously-compounded equation. Those two assumptions (a constant rate and continuous balance adjustment from interest) that allow simplification to the continuous form are usually incorrect in real-world finance; virtually all financial institutions accrue interest monthly, for a variety of reasons including simpler bookkeeping and less money paid or owed in interest. They also, unless prohibited by contract, accrue this interest based on a rate that can change daily or even more granularly based on what financial markets are doing. Most often, the calculation is periodic based on the ""average daily balance"" and an agreed rate that, if variable, is based on the ""average daily rate"" over the previous observed period. So, you should use the first form for fast calculation of a rough value based on estimated variables. You should use the second form when you have accurate periodic information on the variables involved. Stated alternately, use the first form to predict the future, use the second form in retrospect to the past."


I've got cards with no annual fee that don't get used--I never see a bill from them.


One thing to consider besides what rules Oregon has, is what rules your old state have. Of course the lack of income tax in Nevada means that most people are trying to convince their new state they are still a resident of Nevada. You are a full-year Oregon resident if you live in Oregon all year.   You are also a full-year Oregon resident, even if you live outside   Oregon, if all of the following are true: Part-year resident: You are a part-year resident if you moved into or out of Oregon during the tax year. The requirement for financial life means that you should: change all your Nevada banks to Oregon banks; Change all your mail to Oregon; Sell any property or end any leases you have in Nevada. Or course you need to research the rules for in state college tuition, death with dignity  if any apply to you. In border areas you must be careful to establish residency for children to attend public schools. Some families try to cheat to get their children into a better school.


Obligatory comment about debt being to high, eventual hyperinflation and mismanagement by government heralding the end of America.  Obligatory preemptive reply to rational people to say that although this argument could have been made two years ago its different now and you should buy into the fear mongering because its going to happen sooner or later.  Bring on the downvotes!


"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option.  I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons.  **Example:**  [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called ""The Economist"" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos)  [Actual ""The Economist"" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos)  (edit: formatting)"


Sounds like an absolutely terrible place to work if they treat contractors that way. I say that because I was a contractor a long long time ago and I don't think anyone could pay me enough money to go back to those conditions.


I recall similar strategies when (in the US) interest rates were quite a bit higher than now. The investment company put 75% or so into into a 5 year guaranteed bond, the rest was placed in stock index options. In effect, one had a guaranteed return (less inflation, of course) of principal, and a chance for some market gains especially if it went a lot higher over the next 5 years.  The concept is sound if executed correctly.


Much of the absurdity of that amount comes from them adding up all of the time parents spend with their kids, and assuming that the value of that time is the same as if the parents were working during all those hours.  As if, if they weren't parents, they would be spending 120 a week at their job.  It's a nonsense way to evaluate cost for this situation.    Opportunity cost makes sense in business decisions, not in parenting.


"We will bill our clients periodically and will get paid monthly. Who are ""we""? If you're not employed - you're not the one doing the work or billing the client. Would IRS care about this or this should be something written in the   policy of our company. For example: ""Every two months profits get   divided 50/50"" They won't. S-Corp is a pass-through entity. We plan to use Schedule K when filing taxes for 2015. I've never filled a schedule K before, will the profit distributions be reflected on this form? Yes, that is what it is for. We might need extra help in 2015, so we plan to hire an additional   employee (who will not be a shareholder). Will our tax liability go   down by doing this? Down in what sense? Payroll is deductible, if that's what you mean.  Are there certain other things that should be kept in mind to reduce the tax liability? Yes. Getting a proper tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) to explain to you what S-Corp is, how it works, how payroll works, how owner-shareholder is taxed etc etc."


People need to stop listening to financial TV shows and actually do real research. When the shares dropped in price all of these people come out of the woodwork, raising concerns that were already covered in the IPO filings with the SEC. The deck is stacked against small investors, but these people didn't do anything to prevent themselves from getting fucked.


"In England, currently and for most of the last fifty years, the standard length of the mortgage term is 25 years. A mortgage can be either a capital-and-interest mortgage, or interest-only. In the former, you pay off part of the original loan each month, plus the interest on the amount borrowed. In the latter, you only pay interest each month, and the original amount borrowed never reduces: you pay premiums on a life insurance policy, additionally, which is designed to pay off the original sum borrowed at the end of the 25 years. No one in England thinks that a 25 year loan has any drawbacks. The main point to appreciate is that the longer the period of the loan, the less you need to pay each month, because you are repaying the original loan - the capital - over a longer period of time. Thus, in principle, a mortgage is easier to repay the longer the term is, because the monthly payment is less. If you have a 12 year mortgage, you must pay back the original amount borrowed in half the time: the capital element in your payment each month is double what it would be if repaid over 25 years - i.e. if repaid over a period twice as long. Only if the borrower is less than 25 years away from retirement is a 25 years mortgage seen as a bad idea, by the lender - because, obviously, the lender relies on the borrower having an income sufficient to keep up the repayments. There are many complicating factors: an interest-only mortgage, where you pay back the original amount borrowed from the maturity proceeds from a life policy, puts you in a situation where the original capital sum never reduces, so you always pay the same each month. But on a straight repayment mortgage, the traditional type, you pay less and less each month as time goes by, for you are reducing the capital outstanding each month, and because that is reducing so is the amount of interest you pay each month (as this is calculated on the outstanding capital amount). There are snags to avoid, if you can. For example, some mortgage contracts impose penalties if the borrower repays more than the due monthly amount, hence in effect the borrower faces a - possibly heavy - financial penalty for early repayment of the loan. But not all mortgages include such a condition. If house prices are on a rising trend, the market value of the property will soon be worth considerably more than the amount owed on the mortgage, especially where the mortgage debt is reducing every month, as each repayment is made; so the bank or other lender will not be worried about lending over a 25 year term, because if it forecloses there should normally be no difficulty in recovering the outstanding amount from the sale proceeds. If the borrower falls behind on the repayments, or house prices fall, he may soon get into difficulties; but this could happen to anyone - it is not a particular problem of a 25 year term. Where a default in repayment occurs, the bank will often suggest lengthening the mortgage term, from 25 years to 30 years, in order to reduce the amount of the monthly repayment, as a means of helping the borrower. So longer terms than 25 years are in fact a positive solution in a case of financial difficulty.  Of course, the longer the term the greater the amount that the borrower will pay in total. But the longer the term, the less he will pay each month - at least on a traditional capital-and-interest mortgage. So it is a question of balancing those two competing factors.  As long as you do not have a mortgage condition that penalises the borrower for paying off the loan more quickly, it can make sense to have as long a term as possible, to begin with, which can be shortened by increasing the monthly repayment as fast as circumstances allow. In England, we used to have tax relief on mortgage payments, and so in times gone by it did make sense to let the mortgage run the full 25 years, in order to get maximum tax relief - the rules were very complex, but it tended to maximise your tax relief by paying over the longest possible period. But today, with no income tax relief given on mortgage payments, that is no longer a consideration in this country. The practical position is, of course, that you can never tell how long it might take you to pay off a mortgage. It is a gamble as to whether your income will rise in future years, and whether your job will last until your mortgage is paid off. You might fall ill, you might be made redundant, you might be demoted. Mortgage interest rates might rise. It is never possible to say that you ""can"" pay off the loan in a short time.  If you hope to do so, the only matters that actually fall within your control are the conditions of the mortgage contract itself. Get a good lawyer. Tell him to watch out for early-redemption penalties. Get a good financial adviser. Tell him to work out what you will need to pay in additional premiums on your life policy if you are considering taking an interest-only mortgage. Try to fix your mortgage rate in the first few years, for as long as possible, so that in your most vulnerable period, with the greatest amount owing, you are insulated against unexpected interest rate fluctuations. Only the initial conditions can be controlled, so it might be prudent to take as long a term as possible, even though a prudent borrower will leave himself room to reduce that term, and a prudent lender will leave room to extend it, in case of unpredictable changes in the financial circumstances. In England, most lenders are, in my experience, reluctant to grant mortgages for less than 25 years. That is simply a policy. Rightly or wrongly, the borrower usually has no choice about the length of the mortgbage term. Hence, in the UK it can be difficult to find a choice of interest rates based on differing mortgage terms. I am aware that the situation in the USA is rather different, but if I personally were faced with the choice I would be uncomfortable about taking on a short term mortgage, because of the factors I have outlined above."


"Excess Cash = Cash & Equivalents + Long-Term Investments - Current Liabilities The problem this calculation of excess cash is that ""long-term investments"" can be illiquid things like real estate. Another flaw is that it gives no credit for Current Assets, like receivables, which can be used to offset Current Liabilities. The first thing I'd do is ""net out"" Current Assets and Current Liabilities, then add Cash back in.  Excess Cash = Current Assets - Current Liabilities + Cash & Equivalents. It would be nice if GAAP would require Long-Term Investments to be broken out as a) liquid long-term investments (stocks, bonds) b) illiquid long-term investments (real estate, private equity, etc)"


>Banks benefit from lower interest rates because it decreases the rate at which they can borrow from the Federal Reserve from.  But what matters is the spread: if rates on the borrowing and lending side go down, the spread % shrinks, which makes banks less profitable. That's why bank stocks go up when higher rates are anticipated. You can think of a bank stock as being long interest rates.  That's why bank stocks have lagged the rest of the market during this long bull market.  >Bank's Assets aren't all debt  The vast majority is for most banks. GS and MS are the rare exceptions.


Defined benefit pension funds will typically target treasuries + a spread that depends on how well funded the plan is and the duration of the liabilities. So for example, if a DB fund is 90% funded (meaning assets are 90% of liabilities) and the liabilities have a duration of 20 years, they will target the 20 year treasury rate + a spread that will bring the plan to just over 100% funded in around 20 years. This spread will usually be much lower than 8% p.a. Obviously it's much more complicated than this, but hopefully this gives a general idea.


"If you're ""living off the land"" and make no money, then you don't have to file.  Though you might be able to actually make money through credits and the like if you do file. If you've lost more than you've made, then you'll probably need to file since someone will have needed to report that they paid you (W-2 or 1099-MISC).  If the IRS receives a form saying that you made X and you don't file, they aren't going to just take your word for it that you lost more than you made, right?  That, and if you want a refund, you'll almost certainly need to file to get it."


"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as ""investments"" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting.  Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria:  IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters.  D - Depreciation; tax savings.  E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much ""principle"" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil.  A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time.  L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA.  When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it.  Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL."