Im not sure if its normal/sensical/healthy, and that is kind of opinion based. But there is a reason for it. Certain rules and regulations passed recently are causing companies or institutions to shift to bonds from cash. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813


I don't think that there is any good way a study can average this and bring a useful result: The core problem is that there are people that will spend more money than they should, if they become technically able to, and the credit card is just one of the tools they abuse for that (similar to re-financing with cash-outs, zero percent loans, etc.).  On the other side, there are people who control and understand their spending, and again, the mechanism of payment is irrelevant for them. Studies measure some mix between the groups, and come up with irrelevant correlations that have no causality. If you think any tool or mechanics got you in financial trouble, think again: your spending habits and lack of understanding or care get you in financial trouble - nothing else. In a world where it is considered cool to 'don't understand math', it is no surprise that so many people can't control their finances.


It depends on if it is a non-refundable deposit, retainer, etc. The remaining $1,500 is not included in that quarter's sales, because you have not yet received it and it is not guaranteed. The question is really if you should count the $500 toward the quarter where it is received, or during the quarter where you invoice. This deposit might be categorized as a liability until you invoice, and there is no sales tax to be calculated until the invoice for the total. I say 'might' because this can vary by state and the type of transaction or business. For example, if someone makes a cash down payment on a lease for a car, some states will require that sales tax be charged on this.


In day trading, you're trying to predict the immediate fluctuations of an essentially random system.  In long-term investing, you're trying to assess the strength of a company over a period of time. You also have frequent opportunities to assess your position and either add to it or get out.


Fund your retirement accounts first.  Even as an intern, it is still worthwhile to open a Roth IRA and start contributing to it. See my answer to a similar question: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career?


"In your shoes, I would  pay off the mortgage with the after tax investments and be done. You have different goals than I do in that you want to keep the debt.  So, I would  start calling mortgage brokers and asking for someone who does ""manual underwriting"".    Manual underwriting essentially means they use common sense and look at your situation for what it is instead of saying ""income=10K means disapprove mortgage"".   It may be that your situation is different enough from mortgage guidelines that you can't now get a conforming mortgage (i.e. one that is readily re-sellable to another mortgage holder).   If that is the case, you can look for a small bank or credit union that would be interested in adding your loan to their portfolio and not reselling it."


"Finding statistics is exceedingly hard, because the majority of traders lose money. That is, not only they don't ""beat the markets"", not only they don't ""beat the benchmark"" (S&P 500 being used a lot as reference): they just lose money. Finding exact numbers, quality statistics and so on is very difficult. Finding recent ones, is almost impossible. With enormous effort I have found two references that might help make an idea. One is very recent, Forex ""centered"" and has been prepared by a large finance group for the the Europen Central Bank (ECB). It's available on their website, at an obscure download location. The document is stated to be confidential, but its download location has been disclosed to the public by CNBC. I can't post CNBC's link because I have just joined this Stack Exchange portal so I don't have enough reputation. You can find it by looking for their article about FXCM Forex broker debacle due to the Swiss Central Bank removing the EUR/CHF peg at 1.20. The second is a 2009-ish paper about Taiwanese retail traders profitability statistics published by Oxford University Press and talks about stocks. Both documents focus on retail traders. I strongly suggest you to immediately save those documents because they tend to disappear after a while. We had a fantastic and complete statistics report made by a group of German Banks in 2011... they pulled it off in 2012."


"There are only two ways to increase your savings: You are young, and both of these are likely to spontaneously happen - you will be promoted and get raises, and your loans will be paid off, removing the loan payment. It would seem that you need only to wait a year or so, and there will a lot more than $87 left over each month, and your savings will grow almost without any action from you. But somehow, that is not what happens in real life. As people get older they ""need"" more than they did before (larger home, more expensive ""things"", etc) and they never manage to get around to saving. So it's great that you are wondering how to do it. But you are not truly making it a priority. You mention that you also pay/spend for friends, the internet, play & joy, cloth, gifts, book, etc. And this armwavy entirely optional spending is the difference between 72.85 (such precision!) and 90% of your salary. In other words it is 17-18% or more than your rent. Think about that for a moment. Every month you spend more than your rent on friends, play, joy, books and good old etc. If you were to cut that in half, you could save 8 or 9% of your salary. Maybe after your next raise you can get that up to 10%. How can you cut that optional ""fun"" stuff in half? Well, I don't know, because I don't know what it is, and I suspect you don't either. So track it, for a month or two. Are you getting takeout food or coffee every day? Are you always the one who pays when you go out with friends? Do you eat in restaurants a lot? Do you always wear the latest fashions, buy $500 shoes, pay people to do your nails or dye your hair, buy a new phone every year, have the top end phone plan, top end cable plan, ... You have to know where that rent's-worth of money goes every month. Then you can figure out how to send some of it to savings instead.  In some ways you are in a hard generation. Your parents didn't need to save for their retirement because they had you, and they know you will send money home for them. But you probably don't expect the same from the children you don't have yet, so you have to save for yourself. This is a challenge. If you were saving the money you send your parents, you'd be fine. Yet you don't want to reduce what you send, they need it. Still, people have faced bigger challenges and overcome them. Start by understanding where your fun money is going, then look at how to send some (aim for half) of that to savings instead. You won't regret it."


"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss ""F you I'm short your house!"" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book ""The Big Short"""


This article may be a good place to start [Introduction to Smart Pricing: How Google, Priceline, and Leading Businesses Use Pricing Innovation for Profitability](http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1569334)   It gives a brief overview of three pricing strategies, cost plus, competition based pricing and consumer based pricing.  **Edit** -This may also be helpful [Social Science Research Network](http://www.ssrn.com/en/)


There are quite a few questions as to how you are recording your income and expenses.   If you are running the bakery as a Sole Proprietor, with all the income and expense in a business account; then things are easy. You just have to pay tax on the profit [as per the standard tax bracket].   If you running it as individual, you are still only liable to pay tax on profit and not turnover, however you need to keep a proper book of accounts showing income and expense. Get a Accountant to do this for you there are some thing your can claim as expense, some you can't.


It's not the legitimate checks or bounced checks that are the problem, it's phony checks issued against real accounts with actual money in them.  All the security measures on the check don't amount to crap if someone can print up some legitimate looking checks with bogus amounts on them, or even just steal some printed checks and sign something resembling the authorized signature.


"For person A to be protected (meaning able to recover some or all of the money should the other party try to welsh on the deal), the two of them must have entered into a valid, binding contract where both parties acknowledge and agree to the debt and the terms. Such a contract is subject to the Statute of Frauds, a collection of laws governing contracts which is mostly borrowed from English common law. The basics are that in all cases, a ""contract"" is only formed when both parties agree, technically when one party accepts an offer made by the other party. Both the offer and acceptance must be made sincerely. For a contract, once entered, to be enforceable, proof of the contract's existence and terms must itself exist. Certain types of transactions (real estate, large amounts of money) require contracts to be in written form, and witnessed by a trusted third party (in most cases this party is required to be a notary public). And contracts must have a certain amount of quid-pro-quo; contracts that provide a unilateral benefit can be thrown out on a case-by-case basis. A contract that simply states that Person B owes Person A money, without stating what benefit Person A had provided Person B in return for the money (in this case A gives B the money to begin with), is unenforceable. The benefits must of course be legal on both sides; a contract to deliver 5 tons of cocaine will not be upheld by any court in any free country, and neither will any contract attempting to enforce hush money, kickbacks, bribery etc (though some toe the line; one could argue that a signing bonus is tantamount to bribery). In some cases even seemingly benign clauses, like ""escape clauses"" allowing one party a ""free out"", can make the contract unenforceable as they could be abused to the severe detriment of one party. There are also jurisdiction-specific rules, such as limits on ""finance charges"" for debts not owed to a ""bank"" (a bar, for instance, cannot charge 10% on an outstanding tab in the United States). This is HUGE for your example, because if Person A had specified an interest rate in excess of the allowed rate for non-bank lenders, not only will the contract get thrown out even though Person B agreed to the terms, but Person A could find themselves on the hook for punitive damages payable to Person B, FAR in excess of the contracted amount. Given that the agreement meets all tests of validity for a contract, if either party fails to perform in accordance with the contract, causing a loss or ""tort"" for the other party, the injured party can sue. Generally the two options are ""strict performance"" (the injuring party is ordered by the court to comply exactly with the terms of the contract), or payment of net actual damages and dissolution of the contract. In your example, if Person A had lent Person B money, strict performance would mean payment of the debt in the installments agreed, at the rate agreed; actual damages would be payment of the outstanding balance plus current interest charges (without any further penalty). Notice that it's ""net"" damages; if Person A was to issue the loan in installments, and missed one, causing Person B to suffer damages from the loss of expected cash flow directly resulting in their failure to pay according to the terms, then Person B's proven damages are subtracted from A's; very often, the plaintiff in a suit to recover money can end up owing the defendant for a prior failure to perform. There are further laws governing bankruptcy; basically, if the other person cannot satisfy the contract and cannot pay damages, they will pay what they can, and the contract is terminated with prejudice (""no blood from a turnip"")."


Completely different. Canadians can be deemed non-residents by severing their residential ties with Canada and emigrating to another country, and no longer required to file unless they have certain sources of Canadian income. *See* http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/living-abroad/taxation   No such classifications exist with US citizenship. You file a return no matter what, even if you haven't stepped foot in the US in decades.


"In addition to Alex B's excellent overview, I'd like to add a few more bits of advice. First of all, one term you should know is ""commercial real estate"" - which is precisely what this is. There is a business element, but it is strictly (and almost entirely) intertwined to the underlying real estate, which makes this a special category of business which is generally considered simply ""commercial real estate"" (just like office buildings, shopping malls, etc). All real estate and businesses value are based on alternatives - what other options are there? In appraisal, these are generally called ""comparables"". A professional appraiser is generally available for commercial real estate of this type. While a full, official commercial appraisal can run into the thousands, many/most (all?) appraisers are willing to sell you a simplified version of their service, which can be called a ""letter of opinion"" and can help you get an idea for the market price (what other similar commercial properties are running for). A loan company would strictly require this, but if you are thinking of an all cash or form of seller-financing this would technically be optional. Your best bet is to read about some of what is involved in commercial real estate appraisal and evaluation, and you may even want to speak with commercial loan officers - even if you don't know that you want to get a loan to acquire the property! It's their job to help inform you about what is required and what they look for, so they can be a potential resource beyond your own research as well. With this said, the only way to estimate value (and, conveniently, the best way) is to look at other properties! And by ""others"", I mean that you should really not consider buying absolutely anything until you've viewed at least 6-10 other options in some depth - and you probably want to double or triple that number if you are looking to make this the last big business transaction of your life. If you don't you'll be relying on little more than dumb luck to carry you through - which in this area of business, you don't want to do because the dollar amounts and liabilities involved can bankrupt you in no time flat. With that general advice out of the way, here's a tiny nutshell version of valuation of commercial real estate. There are a few key parts involved in commercial real estate: land, improvements (buildings, docks, stuff like that), income, and wages.  Land: the value of the land is based upon what you could sell it for, as-is. That is to say - who else might want it? This alone has many important factors, such as zoning laws, the neighborhood (including your neighbors), water/utilities, pacts on the land (someone may have insisted the land not be paved into a parking lot, or really anything like that), alternative uses (could you put a golf course on it, or is the land suitable for a big building or farming?), etc. And is this in a growing area, where you might hope the value will increase over the next decade, or decrease, or basically stay flat (and possibly cause losses compared to inflation)? Improvements: anything on the land is both an asset and a liability. It's an asset because it could add to the value of the land, but it might also reduce the land value if it interferes with alternate land uses. It's a liability, both in the legal sense and in that it requires maintenance. If you want to rent them out, especially, that means concern about any foundations involved, termites, roofs, sewage/septic tanks, utilities that are your responsibility (pipes, poles, wires), as well as any sort of ac/heating you may have, docks, and so on. These things are rarely free and absolutely can eat you alive. Income: Ah, the best part, the constant influx of cash! But wait, is it a constant influx? Some businesses are purely seasonal (summer only, winter only), some are year-round but have peak times, and others don't really have a ""peak"" to speak of. If you are renting, are there issues collecting, or with people over-staying? How about damage, making a mess, getting rowdy and disturbing others? Regardless, there is obviously some income, and this is usually the most dangerous part of the equation. I say ""dangerous"", because people absolutely lie like dogs on this part, all the time. It's easy to cook the books, assuming they even attempt to keep proper books in the first place! Businesses of this form often have a lot of cash business that's easy to hide (from Uncle Sam, or sometimes even the owners themselves if there are employees involved) - and fake! And some people are just shoddy bookkeepers and the info is just wrong. But, there will clearly be some kind of yearly income involved. What does this matter? Well...how much is there? How much is tied to the owners (personal friends do business and they will leave if the ownership/management changes)? In commercial real estate the income will be calculated for a fiscal year, and then there is something called a ""multiple"", which is market dependent. Let's say the whole place takes in $100k in rent a year. As part of buying this business, you are buying not just assets, but expected future income. In some commercial areas the multiple is as little as .5 to 2 - which means that the going rate is about 6-24 months worth of income, as part of the purchase price. So with 100k rent a year, that means 50k-200k of the purchase price is attributable to the income of the business. And if business is half of what you thought it would be? That means the net value of the whole enterprise decreases by 25k-100k - on top of the reduced income every year you own it! Income provides cash flow, which should pay all the expenses (cleaning up from wind storms, replacing windows that are broken, hauling off trash, replacing a well that ran dry), and then the extra that remains is positive cash flow. If you take out a loan, then ideally the cash flow would also pay that completely so long as you don't have any big unexpected expenses in the year - and still have some left over for yourself. Wages: Well, that money doesn't collect itself! There's sales, keeping the books, collecting the rent, performing maintenance, customer service, cleaning, paying the bills, keeping the insurance people happy, handling emergencies, and everything else involved with running the business. Someone is going to do it, and the biggest error people make here is not to put any value on their time - and to make it so they can never afford to take a vacation again! Pay yourself, and give yourself the flexibility to pay others when you can't (or don't want) to do it all yourselves. So, what's the point of all this? How do you actually make any money? In two ways: 1) selling the whole thing later, and 2) cash flow. For 1, it's important that you not be in a situation where you are betting that in the future there will be a ""person richer, and dumber, than I am now"". If the current owner wanted 2 million, then 1 mil, then less, over multiple years...this suggests either he is delusional about the value of his place (and most property owners are), or that its actually hard to find a buyer for such a business. You are going to want to make sure you understand why that is, because most of the value of real estate is...well, in the real estate itself! For 2, you need cash coming in that's considerably more than the cost of running the place. Also, cash flow can strongly change the value of the business for resale (depending on the multiple, this can make a huge difference or prevent you from selling the thing at all).  You mentioned you want to put in more cabins, more marketing/sales efforts, etc. That's great, but first, that would mean added investment beyond the purchase price. Is it legally and physically practical to add more cabins, and what is their current utilization rate? If they are only renting 10% of their current capacity, increasing capacity may be premature. This will also vary through the year, so you may find there is a problem with being sold out sometimes...but only for a small percentage of the time. Which means you'll be adding buildings only to have them used for a fraction of the year, which will be very hard to make a profit from. If cash flow is good, ideally even being enough to cover a loan payment to help cover the purchase price (and remember that commercial real estate loans are much smaller loan-to-value ratios than in residential real estate), there is one final barrier to making money: the damn non-regular maintenance! Roofs, wells, and wooden walls all have a sad tendency to cost you nothing right up until the point they cost you $30k+ on a single day. Is there enough cash flow to make these sort of certainties (and if you plan to be there for years, they are a certainty) not put you in the poor house? This was rather long, but I hope this overview helps you appreciate all that you'll need to look into and be cautious of during your future en-devour! Commercial real estate is generally costly and high-risk, but also can be high reward. You'll need to compare many opportunities before you can get a ""feel"" for what is a good deal and what is a terrible one. You'll need to consider many factors, such as resale value and cash flow/income (which they will have to tell you and you can assume is not true, due to ignorance or malice), as well as maintenance and liabilities, before you can begin to really estimate the value of an enterprise of this sort. There are people who can help you, like appraisers and commercial brokers, but ultimately you'll need to do a lot of research and comparisons yourself to help you make a good decision.  Finally, there is no very simple method for evaluating commercial real estate value. You need a variety of information, and you must be skeptical of what you are told because of the very large sums of money involved. It is doable (lots of people do it), but you must take care and do your due diligence so you don't get bankrupted by a single bad purchase."


Hope you figure it out.  There wouldn't be a different RFR / discount rate because you're assuming a return on parked cash - that's what it's for.  Since both situations would theoretically happen simultaneously you use the same rate unless you would do something different with cash in each instance.


I would say yes, it makes sense to keep some money in taxable accounts.  Retirement accounts are for retirement, and the various early withdrawal penalties are designed to enforce that.  If you're anticipating using the money before retirement (e.g., for home purchase), it makes sense to keep it out of retirement accounts. On the other hand, be aware that, regardless of what kind of account it is in, you face the usual risk/return tradeoff.  If you put your money in the S&P 500 and the S&P 500 tanks just before you were going to buy a house, your down payment evaporates and you will have to wait and buy a house later.  You can manage this by shifting the allocation of this money and perhaps cashing it out if a certain amount is gained (i.e., it grows to the level of your target down payment) and you are close enough to the house purchase time that you don't want to risk it anymore. Basically, if you invest money for a pre-retirement use, you may want to keep it in a taxable account, but you also need to take account of when you'll need it and manage the risk accordingly.


"I think this is a bit too simplistic, because you need to keep in mind that Buffet was managing the money as his career. Had he paid the 1% fee he could have ""made more money"" doing something else.    People who hire money managers usually do so because it A. saves them time managing their own portfolios and B. because they don't believe they would do a better job managing it themselves."


"I did sort of the same thing as you after a some time in consulting. The biggest annoyance for me was how poorly I thought the most basic, obvious bullshit through. Figure out how you'll bill for travel -- when do you fly vs. drive, what's your mileage rate, etc. Get your proposal template looking razor sharp, and have a standardized invoice ready (don't say ""net 30"" or 45 or whatever, some clients won't understand what you're talking about and there's no way to explain it without sounding like a douche). Be prepared to negotiate heavily at first. Until you start to get a steady client base, people are going to lowball you, perhaps rightfully so. Consider the consequences of establishing yourself at a low rate, or being considered unreasonable and inflexible.   Also, since you're working with a partner, figure out how you're going to register your business by considering your financial situations or, preferably, hiring an accountant. I also *strongly* recommend working with your partner and an attorney to draft an operating agreement. I've seen so many horror stories with people who either didn't have one, made their own shitty one, or otherwise got screwed on technicalities."


Your question is missing too much to be answered directly. Instead - here are some points to consider. Short term gains taxed at your marginal rates, whereas long term gains have preferable capital gains rates (up to 20% tax rate, instead of your marginal rate). So if you're selling at gain, you might want to consider to sell FIFO and pay lower capital gains tax rate instead of the short term marginal rate. If you're selling at loss and have other short term gains, you would probably be better selling LIFO, so that the loss could offset other short term gains that you might have.  If you're selling at loss and don't have short term gains to offset, you can still offset your long term gains with short term losses, but the tax benefit will be lower. In this case - FIFO might be a better choice again. If you're selling at loss, beware of the wash sale rules, as you might not be able to deduct the loss if you buy/sell within too short a window.


Can someone please explain the following in more detail please. I'm not exactly sure how and why synthetics work. > Instead of having credit default swap reference a single company like Exxon, J.P Morgan bundled together a large, diversified basket of credit derivatives that referenced hundreds of corporate credits... those who invested in J.P Morgan's invention didn't own a piece of the actual corporate loan. Instead, they owned credit default swaps - the performance of which was determined by the performance of the underlying corporate credits.  This is from *All the Devils are Here* by Bethany Mclean and Joe Nocera


"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most ""0%"" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case)."


For an investor , I understand its a higher return on investment; but I was wondering if an investor is actually investing in the minerals, or the means of delivery such as ports, rail, trucks, roads, etc; or is that abstracted away


Suppose that the fixed overhead costs of delivering a service, not related to the actual volume of sales, are $50 million per year. Suppose the variable costs on top are $100 per customer per year. Suppose further that 1% of the population buys the service. In the US, 3.2 million people buy the service, and it costs $116 per person to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 3.2 million). In Australia, 230,000 people buy it, and it costs $317 per person per year to deliver it ($100 plus $50 million divided by 230,000). The larger your market, the cheaper everything is, and Australia is a very small market compared with the USA, the EU, China or India.


I recently bought a stock -  which was priced exactly as your question ponders, to the 1/100 cent. I happened to buy 2000 shares, but just a round lot of 100 would be enough to create no need for rounding.  It's common for industry to price this way as well, where an electronic component purchased by the thousands, is priced to the tenth or hundredth of a cent.  There's nothing magic about this, and you'll have more to ponder when your own lowest unit of currency is no longer minted. (I see you are in UK. Here, in the US, there's talk of dropping our cent. A 5 cent piece to be the smallest value coin. Yet, any non-cash transactions, such as checks, credit card purchases, etc, will still price to the penny.) To specifically answer the question - it's called decimal currency. 1/10, 1/100 of a cent.


Imagine that the existing interest rate is 5%. So on a bond with face value of 100, you would be getting a $5 coupon implying a 5% yield. Now, if let's say the interest rates go up to 10%, then a new bond issued with a face value of 100 will give you a coupon of $10 implying a 10% yield. If someone in the bond market buys your bond after interest price adjustment, in order to make the 10% yield (which means that an investor typically targets at least the risk-free rate on his investments) he needs to buy your bond at $50 so that a $5 coupon can give a 10% yield. The reverse happens when interest rates go down. I hope this somewhat clears the picture. Yield = Coupon/Investment Amount Update: Since the interest rate of the bond does not change after its issuance, the arbitrage in the interest rate is reflected in the market price of the bond. This helps in bringing back the yields of old bonds in-line with the freshly issued bonds.


It is, even when we were bidding major projects we could pretty much guess who was going to get the contract before hand. We only put bids in on the ones we might not win because often times the major project would get broken up into several smaller ones because one manufacturer couldn't produce fast enough, or didn't have  enough stock for the client's entire job.  Our major projects guys had inconsistently difficult jobs, one month they would be in the office until midnight. The next month they would be playing golf at 2pm on a Wednesday.


One thing you didn't mention is whether the 401(k) offers a match. If it does, this is a slam-dunk. The $303 ($303, right?) is $3636/yr that will be doubled on deposit. It's typical for the first 5% of one's salary to capture the match, so this is right there.  In 15 years, you'll still owe $76,519. But 15 * $7272 is $109,080 in your 401(k) even without taking any growth into account. The likely value of that 401(k) is closer to $210K, using 8% over that 15 years, (At 6%, it drops to 'only' $176K, but as I stated, the value of the match is so great that I'd jump right on that.) If you don't get a match of any kind, I need to edit / completely rip my answer. It morphs into whether you feel that 15 years (Really 30) the market will exceed the 4% cost of that money. Odds are, it will. The worst 15 year period this past century 2000-2014 still had a CAGR of 4.2%.


You sell when you think the stock is over valued, or you need the money, or you are going to need the money in the next 5 years. I buy and hold a lot.  I bought IBM in 8th grade 1980.  I still own it.  I bought 3 share it from $190 and its now worth $5,000 do to dividend reinvestment and splits.  That stock did nothing for a thirteen years except pay a dividend but then it went up by 1800% the next 20 and paid dividends.  So I agree with other posters the whole pigs get slaughtered thing is silly and just makes fund managers more money. Think if you bought aapl at $8 and sold at $12.  The thing went to 600 and split 7-1 and is back to $120.   My parents made a ton holding Grainger for years and I have had good success with MMM and MSFT owning those for decades.


"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: ""elective contributions,"" which are the part put in by the employee and ""nonelective contributions,"" which are the part put in by the company.  Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to.  So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated.  For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions  ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k).  This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind.  If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly.  It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it.  Using the language of that publication, hers is a ""qualified plan"" of the ""defined contribution"" variety."


I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.


My small business has developed a relationship with a larger branch of a regional bank. I generally work on site or at home,  so when I need a space for interviews etc. I just call the bank and reserve the meeting room there.


You're not missing any concepts! It sounds like you are contributing a piece of collateral to the business, and you want to know a fair way to value how much this contribution of collateral is worth. Technically the economic answer would be the difference in interest between a secured loan and an unsecured loan.  So for example suppose that the business could get a loan at 17% without the collateral (maybe just on a credit card) but with the duplex as collateral it is able to get the loan at 10.5%. In principle, the value of this collateral is (17% - 10.5%) or 6.5%, because it has allowed the business to pay 6.5% less interest on its loan.


"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using ""no margin"". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time."


This is business as usual, except that you need to keep in mind that the corporate entity is separate from the individual. As such - all the background checks and references should be with regards to the actual renter - the corporation. You should be cautious as it is not so easy to dissolve an individual (well... Not as easy, and certainly not as legal), as it is to dissolve the corporation. So you may end up with a tenant who doesn't pay and doesn't have to pay because the actual renter, the corporation, no longer exists. So check the corporation background - age, credit worthiness, tax returns/business activity, judgements against, etc etc, as you would do for an individual.


Short time horizon, small pot of money, and low appetite for risk?  That smells like low return situation to me. I guess it depends on how low your appetite for risk is, though.  You could open a brokerage account (free) and purchase $10K worth of a fully diversified ETF like VTI, optionally putting maybe 20% of it in a diversified bond ETF.  I consider that a reasonably conservative investment, but if you are of the mindset that you cannot tolerate a drop in your wealth, it's not going to work.  Plus if you don't have any other investments, this will be the thing that requires you to report capital gains to the IRS, and that paperwork is never fun. As an alternative, you have CD's, which will make you very little.  Or a high-ish interest rate electronic savings account like Capital one 360 or Emigrant Direct (there are probably newer ones now that outcompete even these).  Still, with anything in this paragraph you will be lucky to beat inflation.  The real interest rate was negative last time I checked, so every risk-free investment will lose money in purchasing power terms.  To beat inflation you will need to take on nonnegligible risk.


Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA?  VA loans are not a great deal.  Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA.  While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs.   If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K.  Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit.   While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off.  Are you intending on working that long?  Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage.  Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement?  You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-.  It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions.  Your success comes in the execution.  Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that?  A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month.  Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there?  Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids.  While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college.  A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college.  They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation.   Thank you for your service.


what other pieces of info should I consider If you don't have liquid case available for unexpected repairs, then you probably don't want to use this money for either option.  The 7% return on the stocks is absolutely not guaranteed. There is a good amount of risk involved with any stock investment. Paying down the mortgage, by contrast, has a much lower risk. In the case of the mortgage, you know you'll get a 2.1% annual return until it adjusts, and then you can put some constraints on the return you'll get after it adjusts. In the case of stocks, it's reasonable to guess that it will return more than 2.1% annually if you hold it long enough. But there will be huge swings from month to month and from year to year. The sooner you need it, the more guaranteed you will want the return to be. If you have few or no stock (or bond)-like assets, then (nearly) all of your wealth is in your house, and that is independent of the remaining balance on your mortgage. If you are going to sell the house soon, then you will want to diversify your assets to protect you against a drop in home value. If you are going to stay in the house forever, then you will eventually need non-house assets to consume. Ultimately, neither option is inherently better; it really depends on what you need.


"Whether your financial status is considered ""OK"" depends on your aspirations.  You aren't spending more than you earn and have no debt.  That puts you in the category of OK in my book, but the information in your post indicates that you would benefit from some financial advice--100 grand sounds like a lot of money to have in a bank unless you are on the verge of spending it. Financial advisors come in various shapes and sizes.  Many will charge you a lot for what turns out to be helpful advice in the first meeting, but very little value-added thereafter.  Some don't have the best incentives (they may be incentivized to encourage you to put your money into certain funds, for example). There are many financial advisors (of sorts) that you have access to that won't cost you anything.  For example, if you have a 401(k) at work, I bet there is a representative from the plan administrator that will meet with you for free.  If you open a brokerage account or IRA at any place (Fidelity, Vanguard, etc.) you can easily talk with one of their reps and get all sorts of advice.  My personal take is to meet with anyone who will meet with me for free, but not to pay anyone for this service.  It's too easy to get good advice and paying for it doesn't guarantee that you get better advice. Your financial situation will depend primarily on a few things you have not mentioned here.  For example, How much are you setting aside for retirement and what are your retirement goals?  This is something lots of people can give you advice on, but we don't know what market returns will be going forward so we don't really know.  One bit of advice that may benefit you is how to set aside money for retirement in the most tax advantaged way. How much do you feel that you need saved up for large expenses?  Thinking of starting a family?  How many months worth of income are you comfortable having set aside? What is your tolerance of risk?  If you put your money in risky assets, you may make more, but you may also actually lose money.  Those are the questions a financial advisor will ask about.  Once you have his/her advice--and preferrably after talking to a few advisors--you can make your own decision. Basically, your options are: Rules of thumb: Save only what makes sense to save in banks given your expected needs for cash. Put a lot in tax advantaged accounts (don't give Uncle Sam any gifts). Then look at financial and real investments. There are a number of free resources on the internet.  For example FutureAdvisor.  Or you can hit up the forums at BogleHeads.  Those guys give and receive financial advice as a hobby.  They aren't professionals, but you can get a lot of varying ideas and make up your own mind, which to me is better than (just) asking a professional. BTW, regarding the ESPP: these plans often give you a discount on stock and can therefore be a good idea.  Just be sure you don't hold the stock longer than you need to.  It's generally a bad idea to concentrate your wealth in any single investment, especially one highly correlated with your background risk (i.e., if the company does poorly you will already be worse off because you may lose your job or see fewer advancement opportunities. No need to add losses in your savings to that).  1 Please note: I am neither advocating nor discouraging buying guns, gold, or other controversial real assets.  I'm just giving examples of items some people buy as part of their wealth-preservation strategy."


SeekingAlpha has an article about short squeezes that states: The higher the number of days to cover means the possibility for a short squeeze is greater, and the potential size of the short squeeze is also greater Logically, this makes sense. A short squeeze occurs when a lack of supply meets excess demand for a stock, so the potential for a squeeze increases when supply and demand begin to get out of equilibrium. Think of two things that would cause the days to cover to increase and what effect they would have on supply and demand.  The current short interest (numerator) increases. This implies that if some event triggers short sellers to cover their position, there are a higher number of short sellers who will need to do so. This heightens the chances that demand will exceed supply.  The average daily volume (denominator) decreases. This implies that fewer investors are trading the stock, so if an event triggers short sellers to cover their positions, there might not be enough traders in the market willing to sell their shares. (Obviously, if a short-squeeze occurs, volume may increase because traders who were unwilling to sell their shares become willing).


If your returns match the market, that means their rate of return is the same as the market in question. If your returns beat the market, that means their rate of return is higher. There's no one 'market', mind you. I invest in mutual funds that track the S&P500 (which is, very roughly, the U.S. stock market), that track the Canadian stock market, that track the international stock market, and which track the Canadian bond market. In general, you should be deeply dubious of any advertised investment option that promises to beat the market. It's certainly possible to do so. If you buy a single stock, for example, that stock may go up by 40% over the course of a year while the market may go up by 5%. However, you are likely taking on substantially more risk. So there's a very good chance (likely, a greater chance) that the investment would go down, losing you money.


If this is something you plan to continue doing it would make sense to create it as it's own business entity and then to get non-profit status eg: 501c3.   Otherwise I'm pretty sure you have to think of it as YOU receiving the money as a sole proprietor - and file a couple more tax forms at the end of the year. I think it's a Schedule C.  So essentially if you bring in $10,000, then you spend that $10,000 as legit business expenses for your venture your schedule C would show no profit and wouldn't pay taxes on it. BUT, you do have to file that form. Operating this way could have legal implications should something happen and you get sued. Having the proper business entity setup could help in that situation.


My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.


The guarantee's value to you is whatever you have to pay to get the guarantee, assuming that you don't decide it's too expensive and look for another guarantor or another solution entirely. How much are you willing to pay for this loan, not counting interest and closing costs? That's what it's worth. See past answers about the risks of co-signing for a realistic view of how much risk your guarantor would be accepting and why they should hold out for a very substantial reimbursement for this service.


"My theory is that for every stock you buy, you should have an exit strategy and follow it.  It is too hard to let emotions rule if you let your default strategy be ""let's see what happens."" and emotional investing will almost never serve you well.  So before buying a stock, set a maximum loss and maximum gain that you will watch for on the stock, and when it hits that number sell.  At the very least, when it hits one of your numbers, consciously make a decision that you are effectively buying it again at the current price if you decide to stay in. When you do this, set a new high and low price and repeat the above strategy."


I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450.  Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price.  The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x.  If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't.      The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.


"The only general rule is ""If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly."" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds."


In your shoes, I would approach a CPA familiar with back tax issues and have them prepare your old returns, gathering as much information as they can.   Only once you have all your forms and payment ready, approach the IRS ready to settle up.


"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification.  You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment.  However, the same logic works in your rental property.  If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a ""break even"" investment very quickly.  In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk.  Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc.  Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt.  While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest.   To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -"


"The Investment Entertainment Pricing Theory (INEPT) has this bit to note: The returns of small growth stocks are ridiculously low—just 2.18   percent per year since 1927 (versus 17.47 percent for small value,   10.06 percent for large growth, and 13.99 percent for large value). Where the S & P 500 would be a blend of large-cap growth and value so does that meet your ""beat the market over the long term"" as 1927-1999 would be long for most people."


$1 more an hour = $160 a month...a few matching expenses and it probably increases payroll less than $200 an employee a month. Does anyone really believe that there is no money in personal care/health care? For evey 5 employees it is $1K more a month. That kind of money is next to insignificant in the industry, and the bosses probably spent more on that on food on the company card.


There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American.


Make sure to check the language describing the 'discount'. The company may be matching your contribution by 5% instead of a discount.  You will likely be taxed on the match as compensation and your benefit would net to less than 5%.   The next risk is that you've increased your exposure if your company does poorly.  In the worst case scenario you could lose your wages to a layoff and your portfolio to a falling share price.  Investing in other companies will diversify this risk. As for benefits, you get the 5% (less taxes) for free which isn't a bad thing in my book. Just don't put everything you own into the stock.  It should be part of your overall investing strategy.


The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table.  Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k).  (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple.  Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k).  Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA.  The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most.  (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs.  Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds.  Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture.  This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts.  Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you.  It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts.  You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc.  The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.


"Let's talk interest rates on your junk bonds. Even after all that the US has been through (and is still going through), the United States dollar is widely regarded as one of the safest safe havens for your money. As such it serves as a de facto baseline against which all other investments can be measured, the bar everyone has to pass: if you could earn 4% on a 5-year US Treasury bond, or earn 4% on anything else over the next 5 years, you pick the Treasury bond. In many ways this means that the interest rate on a Treasury bond is the closest single measure we have to the price of money all by itself. If someone is loaning you money, they could be loaning it to the Treasury instead; they are losing out by making this loan to you, and must charge you at least this rate just to break even. But most people/governments/countries aren't as credit-worthy as the US Treasury. A few are (the US treasury isn't magical, after all, just really good at what it does), but generally they are not. There is a possibility when loaning money to these entities that you will not get your money back. That is risk. All entities have some risk (even the US treasury!), and some have more than others; ""junk bonds"" have a somewhat elevated level of this risk. Now, you don't just take a risk on for free (unless you're being charitable or something, but I hope you can find better beneficiaries of charity than the average junk bond). You need to be compensated for that risk. Lenders will demand compensation commensurate with that risk - or they will just walk away without making any loans or buying any bonds because it's not worth it. The difference between the interest rate on a US Treasury bond and the interest rate on another bond, such as a junk bond, is the risk premium - the cost of carrying that risk. Therefore you can see that the interest rate on a junk bond is the price of money plus the risk premium. Now, the Federal Reserve adjusts the price of money from time to time, by buying and selling US Treasury bonds until the price is something they like. This means that one component of interest rate on a junk bond is the interest rate on the US Treasury bond, and it is effectively controlled by the Federal Reserve (through that layer of indirection). The other component of the interest rate on a junk bond is the risk premium. It's not generally possible to know in advance whether or not some company will actually default. People have to guess, and decide how comfortable they are taking that risk. This means that risk is more expensive (and interest rates are higher) when they think the companies in question are going through some hard times, and risk will also be more expensive when people decide that they can't take as many risks (perhaps they've already lost some money and need to take additional steps to protect the rest). It's definitely very hard for an individual to decide what the risk on a particular bond is. The good news is that you generally don't have to. There are a bunch of rich jerks, hedge funds, retirement funds, insurance companies, and other investment entities out there who spend all day looking at things like bonds, trying to estimate the risk. Their willingness to exploit minuscule differences between the interest rate on a bond and the real risk means that the average bond on the market will be fairly priced, according to what all those people think. Plenty of them can still be wrong, mind you (cf. mortgage-backed securities) but in the general case the price of any security reflects all the information everyone in the world has on it on average, so if you're wrong you're in good company. When you buy a nice diversified bond fund, you have access to a bunch of bonds at a pretty-standard price.  So that's interest rates for you. But you asked about prices. As it turns out, they're the same thing! - just expressed slightly differently.  One way or another a bond is essentially meant to be a stream of payments worth a certain amount in the end - this is why you'll hear them referred to sometimes as a ""fixed-income security"". The interest rate is essentially the difference between the price you pay now, and the value you receive later, except expressed as a rate. Technically, you could structure the bonds differently (e.g. does the bond pay little bits of interest as you go along, or just pay one big lump sum in the end?) but you can use Math to convert between these two situations, and figure out how much money is worth which when, so it doesn't really matter. Anyway. This means that rising interest rates means lower bond prices on bonds you already own (and falling interest rates means higher bond prices). So if the Federal Reserve increases interest rates, the face value of your bond funds will fall. Also, if people think that the companies issuing the bonds are too risky, the face value of those bonds will also fall. (You were probably expecting the latter effect, though.) Mind you, you will still get the same amount of future money out of them as you would otherwise: that's why they're fixed-income securities. However, a higher interest rate means ""I can get more money in the future for less money now"", and so people will be willing to pay you less for your bond in the present. This is known as interest rate risk. It is higher on longer term bonds, because those have more time to earn interest."


The ABA number you speak of is more accurately called the Routing Transit Number.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routing_transit_number A routing transit number (RTN) is a nine digit bank code, used in the   United States, which appears on the bottom of negotiable instruments   such as checks identifying the financial institution on which it was   drawn. This code was designed to facilitate the sorting, bundling, and   shipment of paper checks back to the drawer's (check writer's)   account. The RTN is also used by Federal Reserve Banks to process Fedwire funds   transfers, and by the Automated Clearing House to process direct   deposits, bill payments, and other such automated transfers. The RTN number is derived from the bank's transit number originated by   the American Bankers Association, which designed it in 1910.[1] I am going to assume that the euphemistic ABA Number has been shortened by whoever told you about it and called it the ABN.  Perhaps American Bank Number.  Either way, the technical term is RTN. Perhaps a comment or editor can straighten me out about the ABN. There is an international number known as the SWIFT number that serves the same purpose worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9362 ISO 9362 (also known as SWIFT-BIC, BIC code, SWIFT ID or SWIFT code)   defines a standard format of Business Identifier Codes approved by the   International Organization for Standardization (ISO). It is a unique   identification code for both financial and non-financial   institutions.[1] The acronym SWIFT stands for the Society for   Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. When assigned to a   non-financial institution, the code may also be known as a Business   Entity Identifier or BEI. These codes are used when transferring money   between banks, particularly for international wire transfers, and also   for the exchange of other messages between banks. The codes can   sometimes be found on account statements.


"Basically, the easiest way to do this is to chart out the ""what-ifs"". Applying the amortization formula (see here) using the numbers you supplied and a little guesswork, I calculated an interest rate of 3.75% (which is good) and that you've already made 17 semi-monthly payments (8 and a half months' worth) of $680.04, out of a 30-year, 720-payment loan term. These are the numbers I will use. Let's now suppose that tomorrow, you found $100 extra every two weeks in your budget, and decided to put it toward your mortgage starting with the next payment. That makes the semi-monthly payments $780 each. You would pay off the mortgage in 23 years (making 557 more payments instead of 703 more). Your total payments will be $434,460, down from $478.040, so your interest costs on the loan were reduced by $43,580 (but, my mistake, we can't count this amount as money in the bank; it's included in the next amount of money to come in). Now, after the mortgage is paid off, you have $780 semi-monthly for the remaining 73 months of your original 30-year loan (a total of $113,880) which you can now do something else with. If you stuffed it in your mattress, you'd earn 0% and so that's the worst-case scenario. For anything else to be worth it, you must be getting a rate of return such that $100 payments, 24 times a year for a total of 703 payments must equal $113,880. We use the future value annuity formula (here): v = p*((i+1)n-1)/i, plugging in v ($113880, our FV goal), $100 for P (the monthly payment) and 703 for n (total number of payments. We're looking for i, the interest rate. We're making 24 payments per year, so the value of i we find will be 1/24 of the stated annual interest rate of any account you put it into. We find that in order to make the same amount of money on an annuity that you save by paying off the loan, the interest rate on the account must average 3.07%. However, you're probably not going to stuff the savings from the mortgage in your mattress and sleep on it for 6 years. What if you invest it, in the same security you're considering now? That would be 146 payments of $780 into an interest-bearing account, plus the interest savings. Now, the interest rate on the security must be greater, because you're not only saving money on the mortgage, you're making money on the savings. Assuming the annuity APR stays the same now vs later, we find that the APR on the annuity must equal, surprise, 3.75% in order to end up with the same amount of money. Why is that? Well, the interest growing on your $100 semi-monthly exactly offsets the interest you would save on the mortgage by reducing the principal by $100. Both the loan balance you would remove and the annuity balance you increase would accrue the same interest over the same time if they had the same rate. The main difference, to you, is that by paying into the annuity now, you have cash now; by paying into the mortgage now, you don't have money now, but you have WAY more money later. The actual real time-values of the money, however, are the same; the future value of $200/mo for 30 years is equal to $0/mo for 24 years and then $1560/mo for 6 years, but the real money paid in over 30 years is $72,000 vs $112,320. That kind of math is why analysts encourage people to start retirement saving early. One more thing. If you live in the United States, the interest charges on your mortgage are tax-deductible. So, that $43,580 you saved by paying down the mortgage? Take 25% of it and throw it away as taxes (assuming you're in the most common wage-earner tax bracket). That's $10895 in potential tax savings that you don't get over the life of the loan. If you penalize the ""pay-off-early"" track by subtracting those extra taxes, you find that the break-even APR on the annuity account is about 3.095%."


"Not sure I understood, so I'll summarize what I think I read: You got scholarship X, paid tuition Y < X, and you got 1098T to report these numbers. You're asking whether you need to pay taxes on (X-Y) that you end up with as income. The answer is: of course. You can have even lower tax liability if you don't include the numbers on W2, right? So why doesn't it occur to you to ask ""if I don't include W2 in the software, it comes up with a smaller tax - do I need to include it?""?"


No, as a director normally you can't. As a director of a Limited company, all those payments should be accounted for as directors' remuneration and have been subject to PAYE and NIC, even if you are self-employed. Currently there is no legislation which prevents a director from receiving self-employment income from a company in which he is a director, however the default position of HMRC's is that all the payments derived from the directorship are subject to PAYE. In other words, it's possible only invoice from an unconnected business or in a consultancy role that's not directly related to the trade of business. But it really depends on the circumstances and the contracts in place. Sources: Monsoon at AAT forum, David Griffiths at UKBF, Paula Sparrow and Abutalib at AW  More sources: If a person does other work that’s not related to being a director, they may have an employment contract and get employment rights. Source: Employment status as director at Gov.uk In principle, it is possible for an employee or office holder to tender for work with their employer outside their normal duties, in circumstances where that individual will not be providing service as an employee or office holder but as a self-employed contractor. Where there is any doubt about whether service is provided constitutes employment or self-employment, see the Employment Status Manual (ESM). Source: Section 62 ITEPA 2003 at HMRC


How can I use $4000 to make $250 per month for the rest of my life? This means the investment should generate close to 6.25% return per month or around 75% per year. There is no investment that gives this kind of return. The long term return of stock market is around 15-22% depending on the year range and country.


That interesting. It seems like an apt building could use that for its residents. I think I saw the amount quoted at $470/month, but since there isn't a market it's probably speculative to say anything about what it would cost a consumer or group of consumers.


A tax liability account is a common thing. In my own books I track US-based social insurance (Medicare and Social Security) using such an account.  At the time I pay an employee, a tax liability is incurred, increasing my tax liability account; at the same time, on the other end of the double-entry, I increase a tax expense account. Notably, though, the US IRS does not necessarily require that the tax is paid at the time it is incurred.  In my case I incur a liability twice a month, but I only have to pay the taxes quarterly.  So, between the time of incurring and the time of remitting/paying, the amount is held in the tax liability account.  At the time that I remit payment to the IRS, the transaction will decrease both my checking account and also, on the other end of the double-entry, my liability account. To answer your question in short, use an expense account for your other-side-account.


Illustrating with a shorter example:  Suppose I deposit 1,000 USD. Every year I deposit another 100 USD. I want to know how much money will be on that savings account in 4 years.  The long-hand calculation is Expressed with a summation  And using the formula derived from the summation (as shown by DJohnM) So for 20 years Note in year 20 (or year 4 in the shorter example) the final $100 deposit does not have any time to accrue interest before the valuation of the account.


Currently, in the US, you won't be able to get 4% return on a risk free investment (savings account, CDs, treasury bonds). If the banking system in India guarantees your money and the cost of transferring them to India is not prohibitive, that's the safest option. Buying a house usually is only worth it if you plan to live in it for a while, 5 years or more being the commonly cited figure. Every case is different, if you rent is very high, it might be worth to buy. I suggest posting another question specifically about that with more details about your situation. If you can tolerate a bit more risk, you might want to talk to a financial adviser and invest in the stock market.


The minimum at Schwab to open an IRA is $1000. Why don't you check the two you listed to see what their minimum opening balance is? If you plan to go with ETFs, you want to ask them what their commission is for a minimum trade.  In Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? sheegaon points out that for the smaller investor, index mutual funds are cheaper than the ETFs, part due to commission, part the bid/ask spread.


If what you are paying in interest on the debt is a higher percentage than what your investments are returning, the best investment you can make is to pay off the debt. If you're lucky enough to be paying historically low rates (as I am on my mortgage) and getting good returns on the investments so the latter is the higher percentage,  the balance goes the other way and you'd want to continue paying off the debt relatively slowly -- essentially treating it as a leveraged investment.  If you aren't sure, paying off the debt should probably be the default prefrence.


My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.


I spent a while looking for something similar a few weeks back and ended up getting frustrated and asking to borrow a friend's Bloombterg.   I wish you the best of luck finding something,  but I wasn't able to.   S&P and Morningstar have some stuff on their site,  but I wasn't able to make use of it.  Edit: Also,  Bloomberg allows shared terminals.  Depending on how much you think as a firm,  these questions might come up,  it might be worth the 20k / year


"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of ""low risk"" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying."


No, you were not the stupid one.    Yes many of these mortgage companies will only work with you if you are behind. . . no idea why, but I will say that yes I have seen it.   You do not have to deal with the stress. . . . working with mortgage companies is not a fun proposition, they don't know what they are doing half the time.  You can leave and move whenever you want. . . even if their payments are better now who knows how long till they can actually see the place for enough to move.    I work in bankruptcy I have seen the stresses this causes. . .  it is not fun, even if they are doing better now, try not to envy them, it is not fun.


Do you have a spouse? You can contribute to a spouse's IRA if you guys are filling a joint tax return


"The likely reason the mortgage is ""tricky to get"" is the adviser is probably recommending an interest-only mortgage in which there is no repayment of principle before maturity.  That would allow you to deduct the amount of the interest expense from your taxable income.  Your investment grows compound tax deferred and the principal invested (the mortgage balance) is completely tax free since it never qualifies as income for tax purposes. Example ideal scenario: Refinance $100,000 on a 5/1 ARM-interest only at 3%.  Invest the $100,000 at 6%.  Each year you effectively pay taxes on only the gains greater than interest.  If you reinvest the profits it looks something like: Net Profit:    $12,309 Effective Tax Rate:  13.21%"


You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them.  There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable.  Review your large orders. Are they increasing?  Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?


No fucking shit. Since it is their money that Greece is spending, I think they have a right to put some stipulations on it. Imaging trying to indefinitely keep Greece's ponzi scheme going if they didn't cut debts? Even if that could work (which I doubt) it would be too expensive to be feasible.


I am not an accountant, but I do run a business in the UK and my understanding is that it's a threshold thing, which I believe is £2,500. Assuming you don't currently have to submit self assessment, and your additional income from all sources other than employment (for which you already pay tax) is less than £2,500, you don't have to declare it. Above this level you have to submit self assessment. More information can be found here I also find that HMRC are quite helpful - give them a call and ask.


"For example, if I have an income of $100,000 from my job and I also   realize a $350,000 in long-term capital gains from a stock sale, will   I pay 20% on the $350K or 15%? You'll pay 20% assuming filing single and no major offsets to taxable income. Capital gains count towards your income for determining tax bracket. They're on line 13 of the 1040 which is in the ""income"" section and aren't adjusted out/excluded from your taxable income, but since they are taxed at a different rate make sure to follow the instructions for line 44 when calculating your tax due."


Does this make sense? I'm concerned that by buying shares with post tax income, I'll have ended up being taxed twice or have increased my taxable income. ... The company will then re-reimburse me for the difference in stock price between the vesting and the purchase share price. Sure.  Assuming you received a 100-share RSU for shares worth $10, and your marginal tax rate is 30% (all made up numbers), either: or So you're in the same spot either way.  You paid $300 to get $1,000 worth of stock. Taxes are the same as well.  The full value of the RSU will count as income either way, and you'll either pay tax on the gains of the 100 shares in your RSU our you'll pay tax on gains on the 70 shares in your RSU and the 30 shares you bought.  Since they're reimbursing you for any difference the cost basis will be the same (although you might get taxed on the reimbursement, but that should be a relatively small amount). This first year I wanted to keep all of the shares, due to tax reasons and because believe the share price will go up. I don't see how this would make a difference from a tax standpoint. You're going to pay tax on the RSU either way - either in shares or in cash.  how does the value of the shares going up make a difference in tax? Additionally I'm concerned that by doing this I'm going to be hit by my bank for GBP->USD exchange fees, foreign money transfer charges, broker purchase fees etc.  That might be true - if that's the case then you need to decide whether to keep fighting or decide if it's worth the transaction costs.


"Right... so the fundamental question is if the roll-over cessation will cause short term interest rates to decouple from the Fed's say-so.  This is otherwise known as a bond auction failure.  The fed wants the treasury debt off their books, but they don't want to raise interest rates to make that happen.  So, they're going to experiment with uptake outside of the Fed to see if they can ""boil the frog"".  If the frog starts to squirm, I guarantee you that they're going to take the pot off the burner.  At their the proposed roll-over suspension rate, it'll take approximately 12 to 16 years to to get that two trillion off their books... and that assumes that nothing bad happens during that time.  > Do you know of any good writeups that would back your side?  The closest you're going to find would be anything written about the JCB post 1995... but it looks like their program of direct stock market participation (technically, they're using ETFs, probably for financial cryptography purposes) [began in earnest in 2010](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/japan-bourse-head-turns-surprise-critic-of-kuroda-etf-purchases)  [this piece ](https://blog.kurtosys.com/central-banks-unthinkable-buying-stocks/) indicates that the Japanese aren't the only ones doing this.  England, The Swiss and even the EU is doing the same thing across multiple exchanges.  As the article points out, there's a two pronged effect of suppressing FX stock price correlations (strengthening or weakening of currencies raising or lowering stocks listed on associated bourses) and reducing volatility through market intervention (AKA plunge protection teams).   They also reference an Investco survey of  central bank reserve managers."


Walmart just installed all new self checkout with belts for bigger shopping away from the regular self check out at the store near me. It sounds absurd that your local grocer couldn't sort out oversight. Or like Walmart they check receipts like Sam's now.


"You should be able to pay back whenever; what's the point of an arbitrary timeline? Cash flow is the life blood of any business.  When banks loan money, they are expecting a steady cash flow back. If you just pay back ""whenever"" - the bank has no idea what they'll be getting back month-to-month.  When they can set the terms of the loan (length, rate, payment amount), they know how much cash flow they expect to get.  What does [the term of the loan] even mean and what difference in the world does it make? In addition to the predictable cash flow needs above, setting a term for the loan determines how long their money will be tied up in the loan. The longer a bank has money tied up in a loan, the more risk there is that the borrower will default, so the bank will require a greater return (interest rate) for that extra risk. What you have described is effectively a revolving line of credit.  The bank let you borrow money arbitrarily, charges you a certain rate of interest, and you can pay them back at your schedule.  If you pay all of the interest for that month, everything else goes to principal. If you don't pay all of the interest, that interest is added to the balance and gets interest compounded on top of it.  Both are perfectly viable business models, and bank employ them both, but they meed different needs for the bank.  Fixed-term loans help stabilize cash flow, and lines of credit provide convenience for customers."


http://www.irs.gov/publications/p936/ar02.html#en_US_2010_publink1000229891 If you still own it, you get to deduct all of it. In my taxes I did online with TaxAct, it asked if I lived there or not and it just mattered which form it filed for me.  With having tenants it was a 'business' form and I assume it would be a standard schedule A for personal.  Either way the deductions are still mine to take.


Such loans are of course possible. They exist because the lender gains something other than interest from them: What would happen to the economy if these were common? These are common, common as anything. In fact where it's not banks lending the money, these are the default. So, nothing would happen to the economy, this is one of the ways the economy works all over the world. If you're more interested in a loan from a bank or other financial institution, made to you for whatever purpose you want - here's $10,000, have fun, give it back ten years from now - ask yourself what the bank would get from that? Perhaps they could do it as a perk when you do something else with them like get a mortgage or keep $1000 in your chequing account all the time. But in the absence of any other relationship, what would be their reason for taking on the overhead and paperwork of approving you for a loan and keeping track of whether you're paying it back or not, for no return, whether financial or intangible? No return? It doesn't happen.


The top long-term capital gains tax rate will rise to 20% effective 1 Jan, 2011, unless Congress decides to do something about it before then. (Will they? Who knows!! There's been talk about it, but, well, it's Congress. They don't even know what they're going to do.)  Anyway. The rules about when you can sell stock are mostly concerned with when you can realize a capital loss: if you sell a stock at a loss and then re-buy it for tax purposes within 30 days, it's a wash sale and not eligible for a deduction. However, I don't believe this applies to any stocks once you realize a gain - once you've realized the gain and paid your tax for it, it's all yours, locked in at whatever rate. Your replacement stock will be subject to short-term capital gains for the next year afterwards, and you might need to be careful with identifying the holding period on different lots of your stock, but I don't believe there will be any particular trouble. Please do not rely entirely on my advice and consult also with your tax preparer or lawyer. :) And the IRS documentation: Special Addendum for Nov/Dec 2012! Spoiler alert! Congress did indeed act:   they extended the rates, but only temporarily, so now we're looking at   tax hikes starting in 2013 instead, only the new top rate++ will be something   like 23.8% on account of an extra 3.8% medicare tax on passive earnings (brought to you via Obamacare   legislation). But the year and the rates' specifics aside, same thing   still applies. And the Republican house and Democratic senate/President are still duking it out. Have fun. ++ 3.8% surtax applies to the lesser of (a) net investment income (b) income over $200,000 ($250k if married). 20% tax rate applies to people in the 15% income tax bracket for ordinary income or higher. Additional tax discounts for property held over 5 years may be available. Consult tax law and your favorite tax professional and prepare to be confused.


Switch to cash for a few months. No debit. No credit. This will help for two reasons: Once you've broken the bad habits, you should be able to go back to cards for the convenience factor.


"Employers are not supposed to give cash gifts to their employees, even if you try to call it a ""gift"" for tax purposes. Presumably, the reason your wife's employer gave her cash was to be nice and save her taxes on that amount. Her employer already paid tax on that money so that your wife doesn't have to. If she plans to declare it anyway, then she should instead give it back and ask for it to be added to the W2 as an end of year bonus. This way her employer could then deduct the payment and pay her a larger amount of money. (The additional amount would be approximately their tax rate minus about 7.45% for FICA.) In fact, if your wife's tax rate is more than 15% lower than her employer's, then this is actually mathematically best for both parties."


"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your ""net income"" or ""profits"" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the ""business"", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a ""sole trader"". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you."


Brokerage->Brokerage 13-16 The loss from the previous purchase will be added to the cost basis of the security for the second purchase. Since you sold it at a loss again it would increase your losses. Your loss from the first sale will be disallowed. Your loss will be added to the cost basis of the next purchase. Your gains will be taxed on the total of the cost basis which will reduce your gains. Which you will taxed 'less'. Your gains will be taxed. Your loss is allowed. You will be taxed on both.  Wash Sales really only applies to losses. If you sell for gain, the tax man will be happy to take his share. From my understanding, it does not matter if it is IRA or Brokerage, the wash sale rule affects them all. Check this link: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02


It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions,  buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray,  find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin,  and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin.  Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.


"In general, scholarship income that you receive that is not used for tuition or books must be included in your gross income and reported as such on your tax return.  Scholarship income you receive that is used for those kinds of expenses may be excludable from your gross income.  See this IRS information and this related question. I believe that as represented on the 1098-T, this generally means that if Box 5 (Scholarships and Grants) is greater than Box 1 or 2 (only one of which will be used on your 1098-T), you received taxable scholarship income.  If Box 5 is less than or equal to Box 1/2, you did not receive taxable scholarship income.  This TaxSlayer page draws the same conclusion. However, you should realize that the 1098-T is not what makes you have to pay or not pay taxes.  You incur the taxes by receiving scholarship money, and you may reduce your tax liability by paying tuition.  The 1098-T is simply a record of payments that have already been made. For instance, if you received $10,000 in scholarship money --- that is, actually received checks for that amount or had that amount deposited into your bank account --- then your income went up by $10,000.  If you yourself paid tuition, it is likely that you can exclude the amount of the tuition from your taxable income, reducing the tax you owe (see the IRS page linked above).  However, if you received $10,000 in actual money and in addition your tuition was paid by the scholarship (with money you never actually had in your own bank account), then the entire $10,000 would be taxable.  You do not give enough information in your question to be sure which of these situations is closer to your own.  However, you should be able to decide by looking at your bank account: look at how much money you received and how much you spent on tuition.  If you received more scholarship money than the tuition you paid out of pocket, you owe taxes on the remainder.  (I emphasize that this is just a general rule of thumb and should not be taken as tax advice; you should review the IRS information and/or consult a tax professional to determine what part of your scholarship income is taxable.) In addition, as this (now rather old) article from the New York Society of CPAs notes, ""many colleges and universities prepare 1098-Ts incorrectly and report tuition and related expenses inconsistently"".  This means you should be careful to reconcile the 1098-T with your own financial records of what money you actually received and paid.  When I was in grad school there was a good deal of hand-wringing and hair-pulling each year among the students as we tried to determine what relationship (if any) the 1098-T bore to the financial facts."


"That argument is an argument for investing generally, not peer-to-peer lending per se, and the argument as phrased (""thus you should invest your money at a Peer-to-peer loan platform"") is a false dichotomy. That said, as soon as one is investing as opposed to just getting a small but guaranteed return, then risk comes into play.  In that sense, any savings account is fundamentally different from any investment, and, in that reading, the two shouldn't be compared as different approaches to ""investing"".  Peer-to-peer lending as an investment could be aptly compared with stock market investing, for one."


"If you are already invested in a particular stock, I like JoeTaxpayer's answer. Think about it as if you are re-buying the stocks you own every day you decide to keep them and don't set emotional anchor points about what you paid for them or what they might be worth tomorrow. These lead to two major logical fallacies that investor's commonly fall prey to, Loss Aversion and Sunk Cost, both of which can be bad for your portfolio in the long run. To avert these natural tendencies, I suggest having a game plan before you purchase a stock based on on your investment goals for that stock. For example a combination of one or more of the following: I'm investing for the long term and I expect this stock to appreciate and will hold it until (specific event/time) at which point I will (sell it all/sell it gradually over a fixed time period) right around the time I need the money. I'm going to bail on this stock if it falls more than X % from my purchase price. I'm going to cash out (all/half/some) of this investment if it gains more than x % from my purchase price to lock in my returns. The important thing is to arrive at a strategy before you are invested and are likely to be more emotional than rational.  Otherwise, it can be very hard to sell a ""hot"" stock that has suddenly jumped in price 25% because ""it has momentum"" (gambler's fallacy). Conversely it can be hard to sell a stock when it drops by 25% because ""I know it will bounce back eventually"" (Sunk Cost/Loss Aversion Fallacy).  Also, remember that there is opportunity cost from sticking with a losing investment because your brain is saying ""I really haven't lost money until I give up and sell it."" When logically you should be thinking, ""If I move my money to a more promising investment I could get a better return than I am likely to on what I'm holding."""


To quote the answer you linked to: Perhaps the simplest way to think about this is you can only deduct an expense that you actually incur. In other words, the expense should show up on a bank or CC statement. So, if your business purchased the $1000 gift card for $800, you should see a $800 charge appearing on a business CC or bank statement. You would therefore be able to deduct the $800, but not the full $1000 of items that you purchase with it. Side Notes:


No. You can sell anytime. I am in pedantic mode, sorry, the way the question is worded implies that you can sell only if it rises. You are welcome to sell at a loss, too.  Yes. The fund will not issue a dividend with every dividend it receives. It's more typical that they issue dividends quarterly. So the shares will increase by the amount of the undistributed dividends and on the ex-div date, drop by that amount. The remaining value goes up and down, of course, I am speaking only of the extra value created by the retained dividends.


The most tax efficient way to get some cash would be to sell some stocks from the Fidelity account that have the lowest capital gains. The tax will typically be 15% of the capital gains. This will be a one-time cost which should save you money compared to paying 7.5% on the loan year after year. Tax on selling the stock options will probably be higher, since you imply there would be high capital gains, and some of the proceeds might even be taxed as income, not capital gains.