"This seems to depend on what kind of corporation you have set up. If you're set up as a sole proprietor, then the Solo 401k contributions, whether employee or employer, will be deducted from your gross income.  Thus they don't reduce it. If you're set up as an S-Corp, then the employer contributions, similar to large employer contributions, will be deducted from wages, and won't show up in Box 1 on your W-2, so they would reduce your gross income.  (Note, employee contributions also would go away from Box 1, but would still be in Box 3 and 5 for FICA/payroll tax purposes). This is nicely discussed in detail here. The IRS page that discusses this in more (harder to understand) detail is here. Separately, I think a discussion of ""Gross Income"" is merited, as it has a special definition for sole proprietorships. The IRS defines it in publication 501 as: Gross income.    Gross income is all income you receive in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax. If you are married and live with your spouse in a community property state, half of any income defined by state law as community income may be considered yours. For a list of community property states, see Community property states under Married Filing Separately, later. Self-employed persons.    If you are self-employed in a business that provides services (where products are not a factor), your gross income from that business is the gross receipts. If you are self-employed in a business involving manufacturing, merchandising, or mining, your gross income from that business is the total sales minus the cost of goods sold. In either case, you must add any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. So I think that regardless of 401(k) contributions, your gross income is your gross receipts (if you're a contractor, it's probably the total listed on your 1099(s))."


You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The   December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for   active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager   performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third   Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share   changes for the S&P Composite 1500.  Style Scores,   market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and   the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various   Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed   basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in   response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at   any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent   index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for   information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P   MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.


If your business name is your name, you are automatically considered a sole-proprietorship and any income you generate and expenses you incur can be calculated on your personal tax return. You can use QuickTax Home & Business tax software to lead you through the steps; you don't even need an accountant. One drawback of a sole-proprietorship in your name is liability. You are personally responsible for the business because you are the business. If you get sued, you can lose everything. To limit that liability you can look into opening a corporation. If the corporation gets sued you are insulated from that; the corporation goes bankrupt, not you. A lawyer and an accountant will be required to give you solid advice on this direction.


Very subjective question. some may do it in the first year, some lose money all their life. Some make a fortune and then lose it. Investing time is only a small part of it. some people can never do it just because investing is not for everyone. Just like any other business. or you can invest into t-bill and CDs, you'll be profitable from day one.


Based upon what little is publicly known at this time, it doesn't look good for CAT, PWC or outside counsel. The economic substance they offered up sounds like *post hoc* reasoning. The tax court buying their current explanations would have to accept some exceptionally astute, long-range planning took place that accepted the initial costs exceeding the nascent parts revenue, as well as the risks of over-optimizing tax operations if the necessary revenue didn't materialize; and it doesn't seem they are yet offering any evidence to show that kind of foresight. It will be fascinating to follow, for sure.


You can afford the mortgage but would you have had enough for the down payment? I certainly didn't have $50 grand laying around when I was in my 20s (which is what you'd need to put down on a 250k house if 20 percent convention holds)


A Roth IRA is just an account wrapper.  Inside a Roth IRA you can have a plain 0.1% savings account, or a brokerage account, or an annuity or whatever.  There's no rate of return for a Roth IRA. That particular calculator seems to assume you'll be wrapping a brokerage account in a Roth IRA and investing in the stock market.  Over a long period 6% is probably a reasonable rate of return considering the S&P 500 has returned about 7% over the last decade.


I'd be find with smart contracts that were a requirement with each new hire.  This would also eliminate the legal fiddling that goes on where employers screw employee right up to the amount that it would take to litigate so they just walk away.


Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles.  This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html


Yeah basically an ad consulting firm. The thing is they bring all their networks in, so we are very close to revenue. We have planned 20k for this year, starting in late October. Not needing sales for the first year is huge.


If the business owner doesn't want you to pay him directly, the only reason I can think of is breaking a law. It can be because the business doesn't legally exists, or because the barber wants to evade taxes, or because he doesn't pay his child support or doesn't want his income to be apparent to his debtors in a bankruptcy proceedings. Either way, stinks.


"Some very general advice. Lifestyle borrowing is almost always a bad idea. You should limit your borrowing to where it is an investment decision or where it is necessary and avoid it when it is a lifestyle choice. For example, many people need to borrow to have a car/house/education or go without. Also, if you are unemployed for a long period of time and can't find work, charging up the credit cards seems very reasonable.  However, for things like entertainment, travel, and other nice-to-haves can easily become a road to crushing debt. If you don't have the cash for these types of things, my suggestion is to put off the purchase until you do. Note: I am not including credit cards that you pay off in full at the end of the month or credit used as a convenience as ""borrowing"""


Debt consolidation is basically getting all your debt into one loan. This is possibly more convenient, and lets you close the other accounts (in the case of credit cards, preventing you from incurring any more debt). Ideally, your consolidated debt will have a better interest rate, so it saves you money as well. If you're defaulting on your debt already, you're likely combining this process with some negotiation with your existing creditors.


"While derivative pricing models are better modeling reality as academia invests more into the subject, none sufficiently do. If, for example, one assumes that stock returns are lognormal for the purposes of pricing options like Black Scholes does, the only true dependent variable becomes log-standard deviation otherwise known as ""volatility"", producing the infamous ""volatility smile"" which disappears in the cases of models with more factors accounting for other mathematical moments such as mean, skew, and kurtosis, etc.  Still, these more advanced models are flawed, and suffer the same extreme time mispricing as Black Scholes.  In other words, one can model anything however one wants, but the worse the model, the stranger the results since volatility for a given expiration should be constant across all strikes and is with better models. In the case of pricing dividends, these can be adjusted for the many complexities of taxation, but the model becomes ever more complex and extremely computationally expensive for each eventuality.  Furthermore, with more complexity in any model, the likelihood of discovering a closed form in the short run is less. For equities in a low interest rate, not high dividend yield, not low volatility, low dividend tax environment, the standard swap pricing models will not provide results much different from one where a single low tax rate on dividends is assumed. If one is pricing a swap on equity outside of the bounds above, the dividend tax rate could have more of an effect, but for computational efficiency, applying a single assumed dividend tax rate would be optimal with D*(1-x), instead of D in a formula, where D is the dividend paid and x is the tax rate. In short, a closed form model is only as good as its assumptions, so if anomalies appear between the actual prices of swaps in the market and a swap model then that model is less correct than the one with smaller anomalies of the same type.  In other words, if pricing equity swaps without a dividend tax rate factored more closely matches the actual prices than pricing with dividend taxes factored then it could be assumed that pricing without a dividend tax factored is superior.  This all depends upon the data, and there doesn't seem to be much in academia to assist with a conclusion. If equity swaps do truly provide a tax advantage and both parties to a swap transaction are aware of this fact then it seems unlikely swap sellers wouldn't demand some of the tax advantage back in the form of a higher price.  A model is no defense since volatility curves persist despite what Black Scholes says they should be."


For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins).  In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade.  A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer.  There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might.  I recommend checking in on IB's list.  If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.


No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.


Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments.  The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser.  Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates.  And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.


Stockpiled as treasuries, which are a debt security, they are liabilities.  You're making the case that as the gov't spends it's ability to spend increases as the economy grows? It's not like we're flipping a switch and turning on a light bulb  Edit: it's more like walking out on a tight-rope while people are yelling at you haha


It's a tax shelter. Foreign affiliates hold most of Microsoft's cash and investments. The cost of borrowing is much cheaper than repatriating the money and paying taxes. Those bonds are selling at rates similar to US Treasury Debt. Also, many people and organizations with lots of assets still borrow money for day to day expenses. Why? You tend to make a better return on investments which are committed for a number of years, and the timing of income from those investments may not coincide with your expenses.


Is this money taxable in US?  From what you described you're likely to have been a US tax resident. As such, you're taxed on your worldwide income. Foreign tax deferral schemes are not considered qualified under the US law (unless a treaty says otherwise), so you're liable for taxes on them now. Get a new tax adviser.


as long as US bonds will keep their status of a safe haven and the dollar will continue to be the world reserve currency the bond rates will stay low. hell, after S&P downgraded the US credit rating, the bond yields actually dropped, indicating an influx on money.   the shock will come. sooner or more probably later.. it won't be the end of the world, just another nasty downturn.


"The end result is basically the same, it's just a choice of whether you want to base the final amount you receive on your salary, or on the stock market. You pay in a set proportion of your salary, and receive a set proportion of your salary in return. The pension (both contributions and benefit) are based on your career earnings. You get x% of your salary every year from retirement until death. These are just a private investment, basically: you pay a set amount in, and whatever is there is what you get at the end. Normally you would buy an annuity with the final sum, which pays you a set amount per year from retirement until death, as with the above. The amount you receive depends on how much you pay in, and the performance of the investment. If the stock market does well, you'll get more. If it does badly, you could actually end up with less. In general (in as much as anything relating to the stock market and investment can be generalised), a Defined Benefit plan is usually considered better for ""security"" - or at least, public sector ones, and a majority of people in my experience would prefer one, but it entirely depends on your personal attitude to risk. I'm on a defined benefit plan and like the fact that I basically get a benefit based on a proportion of my salary and that the amount is guaranteed, no matter what happens to the stock market in the meantime. I pay in 9% of my salary get 2% of my salary as pension, for each year I pay into the pension: no questions, no if's or buts, no performance indicators. Others prefer a defined contribution scheme because they know that it is based on the amount they pay in, not the amount they earn (although to an extent it is still based on earnings, as that's what defines how much you pay in), and because it has the potential to grow significantly based on the stock market. Unfortunately, nobody can give you a ""which is best"" answer - if I knew how pension funds were going to perform over the next 10-50 years, I wouldn't be on StackExchange, I'd be out there making a (rather large) fortune on the stock market."


"Primerica's primary value proposition is that switching from whole or universal life to term life, and investing the difference is a good idea for most people. However, there are a number of other important factors to consider when purchasing life insurance, and I would also be wary of anyone claiming that one product will be the ""best"" for you under all circumstances. Best Insurance? Without getting into a much larger discussion on how to pick insurance companies or products, here are a few things that concern me about Primerica: They have a ""captive"" sales force, meaning their agents sell only Primerica products. This means that they are not shopping around for the best deal for you. Given how much prices on term life have changed in recent years, I would highly recommend taking the time to get alternate quotes online or from an independent broker who will shop around for you. Their staff are primarily part-time employees. I am not saying they are incompetent or don't care, just that you are more likely to be working with someone for whom insurance is not their primary line of work. If you have substantial reason to believe that you may someday need whole life, their products may not suit you well. Primerica does not offer whole life as far as I am aware, which also means that you cannot convert your term life policy through them to whole life should you need to do so. For example, if you experience an accident, are disabled, or have a significant change in your health status in the future and do not have access to a group life policy, you may be unable to renew your individual policy. Above Average Returns? I am also highly skeptical about this claim. The only possible context in which I could find this valid would be if they mean that your returns on average will be better if you invest in the stock market directly as compared to the returns you would get from the ""cash value"" portion of a life insurance product such as universal life, as those types of products generally have very high fees. Can you clarify if this is the claim that was made, or if they are promising returns above those of the general stock market? If it is the latter, run! Only a handful of superstar investors (think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and Bill Gross) have ever consistently outperformed the stock market as a whole, and typically only for a limited period of time. In either case, I would have the same concerns here as stated in reasons #1 and #2 above. Even more so than with insurance, if you need investment advice, I'd recommend working with someone who is fully dedicated to that type of work, such as a fee-only financial planner (http://www.napfa.org/ is a good place to find one). Once you know how you want to invest, I would again recommend shopping around for a reputable but inexpensive broker and compare their fees with Primerica's. Kudos on having a healthy level of skepticism and listening to your gut. Also, remember that if you are not interested in their offer, you don't have to prove them wrong - you can simply say ""no thank you."" Best of luck!"


"This is what is called ""stock dividend"". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. ""Fully paid up"", in this context, probably means ""unconditioned"", aka fully vested."


See the Moneychimp site. From 1934 to 2006, the S&P returned an 'average' 12.81%. But the CAGR was 11.26%.  I wrote an article Average Return vs Compound Annual Growth to address this issue.  Interesting that over time only a few funds have managed to get anywhere near this return, but the low cost indexer can get the long term CAGR minus .05% or so, if they wish.


"The cost of the tax may be transferred directly to the costumers but how many times have you heard people who support these taxes say ""ABC company has had $XXXX profit,  They should be able to afford this small tax increase.""  Most people don't understand economics."


"Can't vouch for LA, but property typically is taxed at either the appraised value, the most recent purchase price (""if it wasn't worth that much, you wouldn't have paid that much""), or some combination of the two (usually highest of the two, to prevent ""$1 and other goods and services"" from lowering the tax to zero). You have now explicitly paid a total of $125k for the property; the fact that you bought it in two stages shouldn't be relevant. But ""should"" and law are only tangentially connected. I'd recommend asking a tax accountant who know your local practices, unless someone here can give you an authoritative answer."


My guess would be a black American express. Or, the accountants will make them switch out throughout the year to get maximum benefits. Sometimes, 1% maxes out at a certain amount, so they'll use a different CC every quarter or so.


You probably don't need to call the bank. Today is Sunday, so three days ago was probably Friday (or Thursday depending on how you count the days). Banks normally don't post transactions on weekends - and transactions that do happen on the weekend sometimes don't get posted until Tuesday. I would give it till Tuesday and then call them if you still don't see it show up on your account.


There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.


Why would a shareholder lend the investor the shares? Some brokers like IB will pay you to lend your shares: http://ibkb.interactivebrokers.com/node/1838 If you buy shares on margin, you don't have much of a choice. Your broker is allowed to lend your shares to short-sellers.


First: In most cases when you inherit stocks the cost basis is stepped up to the date of the death of the person you inherited them from. So the capital gain/loss is likely reset to zero. The rules vary a bit for joint accounts, but retirement accounts (401k/ROTH) are considered individual accounts by the IRS. The rules on this have changed a lot in recent history, so it may depend on when he died. Update: As JoeTaxpayer pointed out and I confirmed via this site , the gains are NOT stepped up for retirement accounts, so this is a moot point anyway.  Further evidence that retirement accounts can be complicated and seeking professional guidance is a good idea. ...[T]here is no step-up in cost basis   upon the death of the IRA owner. Most   other assets owned by an individual   receive a step-up in cost basis upon   the death of the person, eliminating   all capital gains on those assets up   to that point in time. Second:  Even if you can deduct an investment (capital) loss, you can only deduct it to offset capital gains on another investments. Also you can only do this up to $3k per year, though you can roll over excess capital losses into future years. Bottom line: I really doubt you are going to be able to claim a deduction. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the amount of money involved. I strongly suggest you talk to a qualified tax adviser and not rely solely on information you gather through this site.


Does it teach anything else other than the DCF approach?  I've already learned that in on of my financing courses. I'm more interested in the more exotic valuation techniques, and how to use and weigh multiple techniques for valuation.


It's not quite clear what you are asking, so I'll answer a few possible interpretations. Businesses pay taxes on their profits. So if your business took a million pounds in revenue (e.g. sold a million pounds worth of stuff) then you would subtract (roughly speaking) everything the business spent on making and selling that stuff, and pay taxes only on the profit. VAT however is a different matter, and you would have to pay VAT on all of that income (technically the VAT portion isn't even income - it's tax you are forced to collect on behalf of the government). If your business made a million pounds pounds profit, it would pay tax on all of that million (subject to what a tax accountant can do to reduce that, which ought to be considerable).  You can't subtract your personal living expenses like that. However the company can pay you a salary, which counts as an expense and the company doesn't pay tax on that. You might also take some money from the company as dividends. Both salary and dividends count as personal income to yourself, and you will need to pay personal income tax on them.  As for the Ferrari, it depends on whether you can justify it as a business expense. A lot of companies provide cars for their employees so that they can use them for business - however you have to be able to show that IS for business, otherwise they are taxed like salary. The rules for company cars are quite complicated, and you would need an accountant. If this is a real rather than hypothetical situation, definitely get a tax accountant involved.


"Depends. If you can choose where to relocate to, then I second the ""no income tax"" states. But even of these chose wisely, some have no income taxes at all, others have taxes on some kinds of income. Some don't have neither individual nor corporate taxes, some tax businesses in some ways. Some compensate with higher property taxes, others compensate with higher sales taxes. On the other hand, you might prefer states with income taxes but no sales taxes. It can happen if your current income is going to be low, but you'll be spending your savings. If you don't have a choice (for example, your employer wants you to move closer to their office), then you're more limited. Still, you can use the tax break on moving expenses (read the fine print, there are certain employment requirements), and play with the state taxes (if you're moving to a state with less/no taxes - move earlier, if its the other way - move later). Check out for cities that have income taxes. In some states it cannot happen by law (for example, in California only the state is allowed to collect income taxes), in others it is very common (Ohio comes to mind). Many things to consider in New York. New York City has its own income tax (as well as Yonkers, as far as I remember these are the only ones in the State of New York). So if you want to save on taxes in NYS but live close to the city, consider White Plains etc. If you work in NYC its moot, you're going to pay city taxes anyway. That is also true if you live in NJ but work in the city, so tax-wise it may be more efficient not to live across state lines from your place of work."


Can't read the article. But WHO gets 78 trillion richer? Cause so far it damn sure has not been the working class of the majority of countries in the world. Rather it's been corporations who massively benefit from the cheap labor that globalization provides. And politicians being bribed/blackmailed to let it happen has pretty much been what's happening all along.


Hire a lawyer familiar with transactional law and they will have a examples in house. Any debt that large will have nuances that Google or Reddit can't help you with.   A term sheet is a term sheet but you will want it to be substantial and air tight.


"Read ""The intelligent Investor"" book before you do anything. I started when I really didn't understand anything about stocks. I bought an internet stock for $150 per share which sold at 75cents a year later. I sold it for a profit but would've been a disaster."


Check the rules with your broker. Usually if it expires in the money, the broker would exercise it. But you need to check with your broker about their rules on the matter.


Depends on if the stock pays a dividend or not. Some companies in their early years may choose to not pay dividends. Your calculations are off as the dividend stated is annual that you'd have to divide by 4 to get what the quarterly amount would be and there can be variances as Ellison's compensation package may well include options so that the number of shares he owns could fluctuate over the course of a year.


How much is your time worth This has been useful for me, judging things based on how much their time value is worth to me, weighted more heavily than their actual worth. For instance, there was a time when I used to work on the weekends and pay to have my laundry done. Doing the laundry myself would have cost 25 cents, but taken two hours at least. Since I was making $45 an hour, I would have lost $90 dollars by doing my laundry, instead of paying specialists $28 to do it for me, much better than I would. Your own capital should begin growing at a rate that makes many MANY things worth less than the time it takes for you to entertain it. So in your cable bill example, you shouldn't have argued for a $5 credit for two hours, unless you make $2.25 an hour, after tax. This is simplistic, as you would extrapolate how much this would cost you over a year or two, but such cost benefit analysis' become easy with this simple concept. This can also be used to rationalize your lavish expenditures. Such as not really comparing the costs for a flight, because its a 2 hour flight for $400 and you've found yourself making at least $200 an hour with your $416,000 annual earnings and capital gains. This will cure your frugality while retaining safe guards on your spending.


"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as ""US income"" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it."


Well sure, but instead of credit card receivables, car loans, etc, the underlying assets are other ABS/MBS/CLOs...so it's an order of magnitude more securitization. And those aren't happening anymore. ABS is definitely active though, and it's a good thing too!


">those fossil free funds have been outperforming their fossilized index counterparts  Why am I not surprised that over a 3 year or less time period, during the worst oil crash in at least 20 years, a fund the excludes that sector is performing better? What a misleading statement.   Like saying in early 2000, ""oh my tech-free fund is outperforming the funds with tech stocks"" while ignoring the dot com bubble bursting having any effect, and implying that tech stocks will never recover."


You have a couple of options: Auto-investing in an open-end mutual fund.  Some companies may waive a minimum if you sign up for an automatic investing, e.g. T. Rowe Price will waive its minimum if you agree to invest $100/month.  There may be some lower ones out there as well. Some brokers like ShareBuilder have programs where someone could auto-invest getting fractional shares with each purchase.  However, something to consider is what percentage is it costing you to buy each time as it may be quite a bit of friction if you are paying $4 a purchase and only buying $40, this is 10% of your investment being eaten up in costs that I'd highly advise taking the first option.


First, of course, I agree with the comments about paying down debt. Then reserve some of those savings as an emergency fund. After that, the default answer is to invest in an index fund as Mr Belford suggested, such as Vanguard's total stock market index fund, and leave it there forever. Even when the market tanks -- especially don't sell it when the market tanks! I might leave some cash in reserve so I can buy when the market corrects/tanks and stocks go on sale, but I'm paranoid that way. (Pick 5 random people and you'll hear 6 contradictory opinions on where the market will move soon.) I personally would just park it in the index fund. You just graduated; you have so many things you could spend your time on (building career, socializing, learning kickboxing and sailing and rock climbing and woodworking and intramural soccer and.....), and landlording has the potential to become a time sink. On the other hand, if you're really into landlording, why not. Just be aware it's a lot more complex than pay $50k down and collect $500 in easy profit each month. There's a lot of learning to do before jumping in.


Reminds me when people complain about not being able to retire but they never invested in any indexes or have a 401K. Like no shit you have no money you didn't plan well, why should I be taxed higher bc I did.  I use dividends to reinvests back into stocks or indexes. Capital income isnt the problem its financial education. Dont be upset I know how to handle my money; people should be educated better on financial planning. Teach that in public schools and embrace people investing money, not make out the rich as some kind of criminal. I can agree inherited wealth is bullshit but being self made and investing well shouldn't be looked down upon because people struggle with the realism that its their fault they dont have money to retire. Life is a bunch of opportunities and choices and yes some people get spoon fed opportunities but it's still a choice to be financially responsible. Stop blaming the rich and educate the working poor and below poverty level how to financially plan their future.


not sure if serious, read on if you don't think the previous comment is sarcasm.  No, they don't. The point of investing is to buy a stake in something that will become more valuable in the future. Other things don't have to devalue for your investment to gain value. This is possible because the net value of everything is increasing over time (compare the value of all the world's private property today to its value in 1900).


You're indeed right, this cannot be answered affirmatively. I will try, without going too deep in details, to brush a shallow portrait In its simplest form, a going concern company could be valued by the present value of a growing perpetuity (Cash Flow/(Required return - growth)), assuming compounding perpetual growth. That's a massive assumption for a yet to turn a dime company. That's why comparable transactions are usually used as benchmark. In this case, your PE can be thought as the inverse of a growing perpetuity, and it's size will be determined by the difference between return and growth. So when you're pre-revenue, you're basically trying to value a moonshot with everything to prove, no matter how genius the idea. Considering the high levels of financial risks due to failure, VCs will require biblical levels of returns (50% to 90% is not unheard of). Hence why they usually leave with a good chunk of the company in seed rounds. When you've had a few sales, you got to know your customer and you've tested the markets, your direction gets clearer and your prospects improve. Risks moves down a notch and the next round of financing will be at much lower rates. Your growth rate, still high but nowhere as crazy as before, can be estimated with relatively more precision. Companies turning a recurrent level of profits are the easiest to value (all else being equal). The financial mathematics are more appropriate now, and their value will be derived by current market conditions as well as comparable transactions. With unlimited resources and perfect markets, the value of the company will be the same wether the founder is at the helm or the VCs are in the place. But considering many founders need the VCs' resources to extract the value of their company and markets are imperfect, the value of the company can change significantly depending on the decisions. Hope that helps!


For most Americans the date on the check determines the tax year.  A check with the date of Jan X 2016 will be reflected on the tax forms you will file in early 2017. That also means that the 401K money is also 2016 money, and so is the money for the flexible spending account, or health savings account. The change of year impacts everybody differently. That last/first check can make a big difference for some people. If you are trying to make sure you deposit the maximum amount of money into one of those accounts, knowing how many pay checks there is in the year is important. It also works the other way, getting an extra check can cause you to over deposit into those accounts. The taxes for that Jan 2016 paycheck are collected by your employer and periodically sent to the appropriate government office. You are paying those taxes on payday, even though you won't file that paperwork until 2017.


Make a portfolio with gold and put options for gold. If the price rises again, sell a part of your gold and use it to buy new put options. If the price goes down, then use your put options to sell gold at a favorable price.


You can simply deposit the check into your joint account. You should be able do that even without his signature. Then you can transfer the money out of that account and into yours.


First, the recipient is not responsible for any gift tax, the giver pays the tax. The gift is not taxable income to the recipient and so the recipient does not pay any income tax on the gift either. More than that, and they tap into their lifetime exclusion, currently (2015) $5.43M. All that's needed is a simple form. More convoluted, would be to lend you the full amount and then forgive $14,000 per year. Unnescesary paperwork, in my opinion.


"I made a throwaway for this...   I work in IT for the government. I was tasked with finding a vendor that provided a particular kind of software. My bosses expected it would take me 4-6 months to source out companies, go through all the paperwork and process to work with them, try to get them to understand what we need, and them aid them in implementing their software on our stack.   Well, that seemed like an enormous waste of time (and ridiculously boring), so instead I wrote the software on my own time over the course of 4 months, built a subscription model around it, and incorporated a company. I've since sold the subscription based model to a number of other government bodies and clients. The government body I work for has around 250 employees, and I recently sold a subscription to a peer government body with over 1500 employees.   I built a free subscription tier that my current company uses so that i'm not taking any payment from them, to avoid any conflicts of interest, and built the entire project on my own time and resources.   The funny thing is, the software product I built easily beat out all the competitors in blind tests, and no one that I work for could ever imagine that I am capable of even being employed by such a company, forget building the whole stack and founding the company. In fact, all of upper management has been impressed with the software I ""found"", and how well it has worked... there has been a ton of positive feedback on it since it was launched.   I'm basically just sitting on this project (that is mostly self sustaining), until I can just cash out - which should be quite soon.   **Edit** to the people warning me what i'm doing is illegal, a few key points    - 1) The public sector can't legally profit from anything, my job is to limit cost, not make a profit... which leads to...    - 2) I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation devoid of contract. I also ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon. In fact, my government body actually does often hire contractors who are also employed. So not only did I create the service on my own time, I gave it to my employer for free (other companies pay, of course)    - 3) I don't live in the US, things are different where I am. It is certainly not illegal, and I would even argue that (given this is the public sector) it is even somewhat ethical. My work saved my employer (the tax payer) a significant amount of money, which is a net positive. The service is of high quality, and I did not break any employment agreements or laws in the process.     - 4) I hired a lawyer to double check everything.     - 5) I absolutely am not in any way using any proprietary information for profit. I'm not even using my contacts through work as leverage for sales - everything so far has been cold calls and positive references from other clients. This was a key part of the project."


This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.


Technically, if you earn in US (being paid there, which means you have a work visa) and live in other country, you must pay taxes in both countries. International treaties try to decrease the double-taxation, and in this case, you may pay in your country the difference of what you have paid in US. ie. your Country is 20% and USA is 15%, you will pay 5%, and vice-versa. This works only with certain areas. You must know the tax legislation of both countries, and I recommend you seek for advisory. This site have all the basic information you need: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion Good luck.


"First, decide on your asset allocation; are you looking for a fund with 60% stocks/risky-stuff, or 40% or 20%? Second, look for funds that have a mix of stocks and bonds. Good keywords would be: ""target retirement,"" ""lifecycle,"" ""balanced,"" ""conservative/moderate allocation."" As you discover these funds, probably the fund website (but at least Morningstar.com) will tell you the percentage in stocks and risk assets, vs. in conservative bonds. Look for funds that have the percentage you decided on, or as close to it as possible. Third, build a list of funds that meet your allocation goal, and compare the details. Are they based on index funds, or are they actively managed? What is the expense ratio? Is the fund from a reputable company? You could certainly ask more questions here if you have several candidates and aren't sure how to choose. For investing in US dollars one can't-go-wrong choice is Vanguard and they have several suitable funds, but unfortunately if you spend in NIS then you should probably invest in that currency, and I don't know anything about funds in Israel. Update: two other options here. One is a financial advisor who agrees to do rebalancing for you. If you get a cheap one, it could be worth it. Two is that some 401k plans have an automatic rebalancing feature, where you have multiple funds but you can set it up so their computer auto-rebalances you. That's almost as good as having a single fund, though it does still encourage some ""mental accounting"" so you'd have to try to only look at the total balance, not the individual fund balances, over time. Anyway both of these could be alternatives ways to go on autopilot, besides a single fund."


The question seems to be from the point of view actual sales and not its impact on one's taxation. In case you just want to sell, why brokers will respond differently each times. Either there may be issues with ownership and/or the company whose shares it is? In case you feel that the issues lies with brok


1- Wells Fargo does not own our current mortgage.  They have bundled it and sold it as an investment. 2- They make their money from 'servicing' the loan.  Even if they only get $50 per month to service it (3% of our monthly payment), that adds up to $50,000,000 per month if they have a million homes under management.  That is $600 million per year for each million homes being serviced 3- Managing the escrow gets them additional profit, because they can invest it and earn 2-3%.  If 1,000,000 homes have an average balance of $2,000 in their escrow accounts, they can earn up to $60 per year, or $60,000,000 annually. 4- They make $1,000 every time they refinance the home.  This is the approximate profit after paying real closing costs.  Refinance those million homes, and you make a cool billion in profit! 5- They also want to be sure that they keep us as a customer.  By lowering our payment, they decrease the likelyhood that we will refinance with someone else, and we are less likely to default.  (Not that they lose if we default, because they don't own the loan!) 6- they make additional profit by paying off the old loan (they don't own it… remember), then packaging and selling the new mortgage.  Since they are selling it as a security, they sell for future value, meaning they sell our $200,000 loan for a valuation of $360,000.  This means that they sell for $200,000 PLUS some fraction of the additional $160,000.  Let's say they only want a 10% premium of the $360,000 valuation.  That means they sell our $200,000 loan for $236,000.  They pocket $36,000.  If they make a million of these transactions every year, that is $36 billion dollars in profit So… Wells fargo refinances one million homes every year, and they make: $36,000,000,000 initial profit for selling the loan (with absolutely no risk!), plus $1,000,000,000 for doing the loan $660,000,000 annually to service the loan (Very little risk, since it is being paid by the owner of the loan as a service fee) If they can retain the loans for their entire life (keep us from refinancing with someone else…), they can make $19,800,000,000 (that is 19.8 billion dollars in servicing fees) The profit they make in a refinance is much greater than the money then can make by holding the loan for 30 years.


You're not physically present in the US, you're not a US citizen, you're not a green card holder, and you don't have a business that is registered in the US - US laws do not apply to you. You're not in any way under the US jurisdiction.  Effectively connected income is income effectively connected to your business in the US. You're not in the US, so there's nothing to effectively connect your income to. Quote from the link: You usually are considered to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business   when you perform personal services in the United States. You ask: If I form an LLC or C corp am I liable for this withholding tax? If you form a legal entity in a US jurisdiction - then that entity becomes subjected to that jurisdiction. If you're physically present in the US - then ECI may become an issue, and you also may become a resident based on the length of your stay.


This depends on the practise and applications available with the Beneficiary Bank. For a corporate customer, the details are show. For Retail customers they are generally not shown.


In addition to finding another woman investor, you have an equitable option that is not unreasonable: ask your partner to buy out 3% worth of shares from you (which then gives her 54%, allowing you to then sell 5% to an investor and have it not dilute her below 51%: .54 * .95 = .513).   That keeps you whole but also keeps your woman-owned-business status.


"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply   collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and   many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer   is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for   retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However,   picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in   a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the   stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled ""robo-advisors"". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads)."


"We had a ""civics"" class when I was a freshman in high school. This was in the Ann Arbor, MI public schools. It covered the very basics (how to balance your checkbook, what are stocks, how do income taxes work, what is interest, etc.) of money management along with an overview of politics and the legal system. It was a really light class, though, and didn't go deeply into personal finance and money management. I agree that such a class would be very valuable, as would cooking, nutrition, and basic home and car repair."


Yes, it's possible (and quite legitimate) to do that using depreciation expenses. While there's a large up-front cash expense (a capital expenditure), you then get many years (depending on the usable life of the asset) of depreciation expense that reduces your taxable income. Many capital-intensive businesses can be attractive for just that reason (for example, real estate).  Your question is a bit of a reverse on the common criticism that companies overemphasize non-GAAP numbers (like EBITDA) to appear more profitable (or profitable at all) compared with their GAAP Net Income. But it is certainly true that plenty of companies (especially private ones) factor tax considerations into capital expenditure timing and choices.


Wash sale applies. If you purchase shares within 30 days of that Feb 3 sell date, the wash sale kicks in, preventing the loss on that sale, and deferring it into the new shares.


This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%.  So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue.  I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work.  So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month.  If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year.  If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!


"Isn't it true that on the ex-dividend date, the price of the stock goes down roughly the amount of the dividend? That is, what you gain in dividend, you lose in price drop. Yes and No. It Depends! Generally stocks move up and down during the market, and become more volatile on some news. So One can't truly measure if the stock has gone down by the extent of dividend as one cannot isolate other factors for what is a normal share movement. There are time when the prices infact moves up. Now would it have moved more if there was no dividend is speculative. Secondly the dividends are very small percentage compared to the shares trading price. Generally even if 100% dividend are announced, they are on the share capital. On share prices dividends would be less than 1%. Hence it becomes more difficult to measure the movement of stock. Note if the dividend is greater than a said percentage, there are rules that give guidelines to factor this in options and other area etc. Lets not mix these exceptions. Why is everyone making a big deal out of the amount that companies pay in dividends then? Why do some people call themselves ""dividend investors""? It doesn't seem to make much sense. There are some set of investors who are passive. i.e. they want to invest in good stock, but don't want to sell it; i.e. more like keep it for long time. At the same time they want some cash potentially to spend; similar to interest received on Bank Deposits. This class of share holders, it makes sense to invest into companies that give dividends, as year on year they keep receiving some money. If they on the other hand has invested into a company that does not give dividends, they would have to sell some units to get the same money back. This is the catch. They have to sell in whole units, there is brokerage, fees, etc, there are tax events. Some countries have taxes that are more friendly to dividends than capital gains. Thus its an individual choice whether to invest into companies that give good dividends or into companies that don't give dividends.  Giving or not giving dividends does not make a company good or bad."


Credit scoring has changed since the time of this question (July 2017) and it is now possible that having a high available credit balance can negatively affect your credit score. ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having   excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person   could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime   credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have   multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card   rewards program points game could be affected as well. source


As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.


Assuming it's your business, endorse the check as yourself and your DBA name, payable to your personal account


"Sell 200 at 142. What does that mean? I haven't seen the movie, so I won't try to put anything in story context.  ""Sell 200 at 142"" means to sell 200 units (usually shares, but in this case it would likely be gallons or barrels of orange juice or pounds or tons of frozen juice).   In general, this could mean that you have 200 units and want to sell what you have.  Or you could borrow 200 units from someone and sell those--this is called a naked short.  In this case, it seems that what they are selling is a futures contract.  With a futures contract, you are promising to obtain orange juice by some future date and sell it for the agreed price.  You could own an orange grove and plan to turn your oranges into juice.  Or you could buy a futures contract of oranges to turn into juice.  Or you could arbitrage two futures contracts such that one supplies the other, what they're doing here.   In general people make profits by buying low and selling high.  In this case they did so in reverse order.  They took the risk of selling before they had a supply.  Then they covered their position by purchasing the supply.  They profited because the price at which they bought was lower than the price at which they sold.   The reason why this is necessary is that before buying the oranges, the orange juice makers need to know that they can make a profit.  So they sell orange juice on the futures market.  Then they know how much they can afford to pay for oranges on a different market.  And the growers know how much they can get for oranges, so they can pay people to water and pick them.   Without the futures markets, growers and orange juice makers would have to take all the risk themselves.  This way, they can share risks with each other and financiers.  Combined with insurance, this allows for predictable finances.  Without it, growers would have to be wealthy to afford the variation in crop yields and prices."


"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist.  As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth.  Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense.  Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the ""bad"" companies to charity.  And what littleadv said - that too."


"Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property.  Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of ""If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]"". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing."


That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses.


In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence.  Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500.   If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash.  Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500.  You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account.   If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track.  I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.


"Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, ""Cause I like big round numbers,"" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like ""Dragon's Den"" or ""Shark Tank"" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing."


"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes.  What will likely change, however, is your cost basis.  You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money.  If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.).  If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price.  The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis.  When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago.  It went up to $2000 and you sold it.  You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes.  Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850.  Now suppose you buy another ETF with that.  Your cost basis is now $1850.  Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000.  This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150.  (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50).  Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it.  You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid).  15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement.  So in essence you pay the same taxes either way.  (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is ""tax exempt"", but each time you sell, you ""reset the counter"" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment.  Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them.  Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself.  In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you."


While there have been plenty of good answers I would like to suggest turning it on it's head--the problem is one of perception. Other than in terms of cash-type emergency funds (my general policy is to have enough cash to get home, however far from there I might be) I consider available credit + assets that can be liquidated reasonably quickly to count as emergency fund money.


> lol  This univariate model-based inference is a good enough reason for further investigation. I would be interested in knowing how much of the recent returns of the S&P are being driven purely by the Fed bond purchase program, controlling for other macro-economic variables. The bond purchase program is not going to last forever.


"All margin is marked to market. Option longs do not post margin because long margin trading is forbidden. Equity longs must post margin if cash is borrowed to fund the purchase. Shorts of all kinds must post margin, and the rates are generally the same: a few standard deviations away from the mean daily change of the underlying. A currency futures trader, because of the involatility of most major monies, can get away with a few percentage points.  Commodities can get to around 10%.  Single equities are frequently around 20%, while indices can get back down to 10%. A future is a special case because both sides are technically short and long at the same time.  The easiest example to perceive is a currency future.  Which one is the buyer and which is the seller?  Both and neither. Contracts may be denominated for one side as the seller and the other the buyer, but contractually, legally, and effectively, both are liable to the other, and both must take delivery.  For non-currency assets, it only appears as if the cash seller is the buyer because cash is not considered an asset in the same way all other assets are, but the ""long"" is obligated to sell cash and buy the ""asset""."


When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money.   If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds.  Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds .   Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless.


I don't know about India, but here in the US banks, and more friendly institutions such as credit unions, use to offer the option of a 'secured' credit card where the card was secured by placing a lock on money in a savings account equal to the credit limit on the card. So for example, if you had $1500 in savings, you could have them lock say $1000, which you would not be able to withdraw from savings, in return for a credit card account with a credit limit of $1000.  Typically you still earned interest on the full amount of the savings, you were just limited to having to maintain a minimum balance in that account of $1000.


He is also going to make sure Uber provides 1099s right?  Also report values under $600 to the IRS?  He is also going to make sure all of his drivers have insurance that cover their taxi service right (standard automotive insurance won't cover you for this)? Uber, Lyft, airbnb, taskrabbit gigwalk, etc are like pyramid schemes.  They tell you how to make money, convince you to make transactions, which they take a percentage of.  However, they conveniently don't tell you about the correct regulations, taxes, laws, etc that end up netting you very little at the end of the year.


Several things to do: Change your bank. $2 for a check? Why?? When shopping for a new bank: ask for a free checking account. College students can get free checking in almost any bank. At least the first box of checks will be free, which will give you enough checks for the next several years (I'm still not half done with the box I got from WaMu 5 years ago). Check out your neighborhood credit union. Most of them have free checking and free checks for students as well. If still no luck - check online check printing services, they'll send you a box for less than $25, that's for sure. Walmart for example (1 box - $7). Also, you can use banks' bill-pay service for any check you write, if you know the address of the person, the amount and the sum a couple of days ahead of time. That should cover rent, and probably most of your other checks.


You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule.    In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if   both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later).   Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months.


The Roth IRA will provide no tax benefit to you if you are contributing after-tax money and then removing it immediately. Also there is more information on tax benefits for parents of disabled children (and a real phone number, I tried calling) at http://www.irs.gov/uac/Tax-Benefits-for-Disabled-Taxpayers


"Yes, you effectively need to ""double count"" when shifting balances between foreign accounts."


"The price at which a stock was purchased is a sunk cost--that is, you cannot go back in time and reverse the decision you made to purchase that stock.  Another example of a sunk cost would be purchasing a non-refundable, non-transferable movie ticket.  Sunk costs have the tendency to create a cognitive bias in which we feel that the amount we paid at some point in the past should have some sort of bearing on the decision we make now--the purchaser of the ticket feels he must go see the movie even if he no longer wishes too, lest the ticket ""go to waste""... the investor hopelessly clings to a battered stock for that tiny chance that just maybe some day it will return to its former glory.  This is referred to as the ""sunk cost fallacy"" and is considered to be irrational behavior by economists. Keeping this in mind, your hopes and dreams for the stock at the time you purchased it should have no bearing on the decision you make now.  Similarly, whether the stock has risen or fallen in price since your purchase date should have no bearing.  Instead, you must consider what you expect the stock to do from this very moment on into the future--that is, you must act at the margin. You've indicated that you are faced with two choices--sell the stock now, incur the loss, but benefit from the tax break (Option A).  This benefit is quite easily quantifiable--it is your marginal tax rate multiplied by the additive inverse of the loss (assuming you have/will have other gains to offset).  Let's just assume that you incurred a $1000 loss, at a marginal tax rate of 20%, which means your tax benefit for the loss is $200. The second choice--to hold the stock in hopes of it rising in price (Option B)--is a bit harder to quantify.  You must assume that today is day zero, and that every cent in price the stock rises is a gain to you, and every cent in price the stock looses is a loss to you.  If you believe that the stock will rise to a price that will net your more than your tax benefit from option A, then holding the stock is more favorable than selling it at a loss today.  Conversely, if you believe this stock will fall even further in the future, or not rise enough to net you $200 (per the example), then Option A is preferable. Granted, there are some additional complications that play into your decision.  By selling the stock today, you not only get a tax benefit from the loss, but you've also freed up the funds previously used to purchase that stock to be invested elsewhere (in hopefully a better performing asset).  If you choose to stick with your current stock, then the gains you may have netted elsewhere must be considered as an opportunity cost associated with Option B.  Finally, the tax benefit is essentially guaranteed (so in our example, a $200 risk free return), while sticking with the stock in Option B still comes with some risk."


"I'd suggest that Bitcoin is not ""just"" anything. If wealthy Chinese have found it useful, good for them. If enterprising Venezuelan manage to afford basic necessities with it, that's great too.    Both of those are just use cases in the end. There have been others, and there will be more.   It remains to be seen just how draconian capital controls need to be to really prevent Bitcoin from being used in those environments. But if anybody can do draconian, it's probably China, so this will be a great experiment of sort, if they still have the stomach for that kind of thing.  If you're arguing that the market value of bitcoin is only rising because of one use case, I invite you to [look at this historical bitcoin price chart](https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg2920ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zvzl), spot the period of activity for your given use case, and estimate how the price action was influenced over that period by this use case. Then contrast it with the part of the graph outside of your chosen period, and make sure your idea adequately explains both parts."


What I do not get is why does the author choose to buy an ITM put. If   the goal was to not lose more than 5.6%, he could have chosen a out of   money put where the strike is ~6% OTM. The reason why he is buying a ITM put instead of a put 5-6% below the ATM price, is because he wants to only lose 5-6% after all fee's.  A put at 5-6% below ATM is not free, so it will not actually provide a 6% cushion, more likely 10%-15% maximum loss after it's cost is accounted for. You cannot rely on the strike alone to determine the level of protection you are buying.  Real world example.  SPY DEC 2017 195 strike put, costs $2150, it's about 6% OTM, but it costs roughly 10% of SPY $207, at best it would protect 85% of your net worth.   Strike - Costs = Protection  Did he choose an ITM put because he does not want to pay any time   premium? Does he not lose in wide bid-ask spreads what he gains by not   paying time premium? Nope, you were just misunderstanding how he calculated his protection. He wanted to protect 5-6% after the cost of the hedge. He 'needed' to select an ITM put because time premiums are so high that an OTM put wouldn't suffice.


That's what I would do; 1.2 million dollars is a lot of money, but it doesn't make you retired for the rest of your life: There is a big crisis coming soon (my personal prediction) in the next 10-15 years, and when this happens: government will hold your money if you leave them in the bank (allowing you to use just part of it; you will have to prove the reason you need it), government will pass bills to make it very hard to close your investment positions, and government will pass new laws to create new taxes for people with a lot of money (you). To have SOME level of security I would separate my investment in the following: 20% I would buy gold certificates and the real thing (I would put the gold in a safe(s)). 20% I would put in bitcoin (you would have to really study this if you are new to crypto currency in order to be safe). 40% I would invest in regular finance products (bonds, stocks and options, FX). 20% I would keep in the bank for life expenses, specially if you don't want work for money any more. 20% I would invest in startup companies exchanging high risk hoping for a great return. Those percentages might change a little depending how good/confident you become after investing, knowing about business, etc...


"First, don't save anything in a tax sheltered vehicle. You will be paying so little tax that there will be essentially no benefit to making the contributions, and you'll pay tax when they come out. Tax free compounding for 40 years is terrific, but start that after you're earning more than a stipend. Second, most people recommend having a month's expenses readily available for emergencies. For you, that would be $1500. If you put $100 a month aside, it will take over a year to have your emergency fund. It's easy to argue that you should pick a higher pace, so as to have your emergency money in place sooner. However, the ""emergencies"" usually cited are things like home repair, car repair, needing to replace your car, and so on. Since you are renting your home and don't have a car, these emergencies aren't going to happen to you. Ask yourself, if your home was destroyed, and you had to replace all your clothes and possessions (including furniture), how much would you need? (Keep in mind any insurance you have.) The only emergency expense I can't guess about is health costs, because I live in Canada. I would be tempted to tell you to get a credit card with a $2000 limit and consider that your emergency fund, just because grad student living is so tight to the bone (been there, and 25 years ago I had $1200 a month, so it must be harder for you now.) If you do manage to save up $1500, and you've really been pinching to do that (walking instead of taking the bus, staying on campus hungry instead of popping out to buy food) let up on yourself when you hit the target. Delaying your graduation by a few months because you're not mentally sharp due to hunger or tiredness will be a far bigger economic hit than not having saved $200 a month for 2 or 3 years. The former is 3-6 months of your new salary, the latter 5-7K. You know what you're likely to earn when you graduate, right?"


Didn't see it mentioned so far, but depending on modified AGI you may be prevented from a tax deduction for your contribution to a Traditional IRA if you or your spouse are offered a retirement plan at work, even if you don't participate in it.  See the IRS page here for the details of deduction limitability: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work In my opinion, because I heavily favor all the benefits of the Roth, I'd contribute first to a Roth IRA and then to the Roth 401(k).   The former first because it puts the money in a place where you have more control over fees and how it is invested.   The latter because the contribution limits are much higher than the IRA, and the money grows tax-free and incurs no taxes on withdrawal.


Since you're not loaning the company the money, the correct category is Equity. It's not an income type account, rather it represents the balance of Assets - Liabilities = Owner's Equity So you'd put down £100 as the starting balance of Owner's Equity, and then a Cash Balance of £100 in a cash account.


This is the bird's eye view of how shorting works: When you place an order to sell a stock short, your broker attempts to grab the desired number of shares from any accounts of its other customers and makes them available for you to sell. If no other customers own shares of this stock, then generally you are out of luck (It is more complicated like that in practice, but this is just an overview).    Your odds are better if the particular stock has a large float (i.e. a large number of shares that are actually available for trading) and its short ratio is low (which means relatively few shares   are currently being sold short). Also, a large brokerage may be more likely to have access to the shares than a small niche-market broker.   The example you've given, Angie's List (ANGI) is a $600M small-cap with a comparatively low float, and though I haven't been able to glean the short ratio, it appears that a lot of investors are bearish on this stock and probably already had the same idea to short it.  There is really no way to find out if a specific broker has shares in inventory available for shorting, short of (forgive the pun) checking directly with the broker.


The 'standard' in such moving average crossover systems is 50/200. The numbers are essentially arbitrary as long as the long term average is greater than the short term and there is some different between the averages in terms of the smoothing they provide (i.e. comparing a 74 day MA to a 75 day MA isn't what the system is intended for) There are plenty of software programs that will let you run through many possible values for the system over historical data. I concur with the other answers in that this system/indicator alone isn't very good. However, I disagree with their blanket brushing off of technical analysis. There are many successful traders out there. The moving average cross over system is perhaps the second most primitive example of technical strategies categorized as trend following systems (buying new recent highs and selling new recent lows being the most simple). This particular system isn't very powerful because of its poor use of simple moving averages. A simple moving average is intended to smooth out data, but smoothing comes at the cost of lagging from the present. A simple moving average essentially gives you an idealized smoothing of price action for the day at that is one half of their period ago. So your 200 day simple moving average shows you an idealized smoothing of price action 100 days ago. A lot can happen in 100 days and that is why this system is far from ideal.


For tax purposes, what matters is your province of residence at December 31st. Quebec Tax abatement therefore applies if you were living in Quebec, regardless of your employer, assuming you are an employee. As for effective tax, your question misses some data and does not quite make sense as effective tax is the result of dividing your total taxes paid after deductions and tax credits by your total income. As such, one cannot tell you your effective tax rate without knowing taxes paid after deductions and tax credits and total income.


Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.


I know that in the case of cash dividends I will get the dividend as long as I bought the stock before the ex-date but what happens in the case of an stock dividend? This is same as cash dividends. You would receive the additional stock.


Someone mentioned sign up bonuses but only mentioned dollar values. You might get points, sweet, sweet airline points :) which some might find compelling enough to churn cards so they always have a few open.


You might want to talk with your financial planner about any or all of the following: as well as Some of these offer the guarantee of a minimal amount of interest, as well as the ability to take a loan out against the cash value, without lapsing the policy.  They may also offer certain tax advantages depending upon your jurisdiction and situation.


"My take on this is that with any short-selling contract you are engaging in, at a specified time in the future you will need to transfer ownership of the item(s) you sold to the buyer. Whether you own the item(s) or in your case you will buy your friend's used  car in the meantime (or dig enough gold out of the ground - in the case of hedging a commodity exposure) is a matter of ""trust"". Hence there is normally some form of margin or credit-line involved to cover for you failing to deliver on expiry."


That should obscure your name and home address fairly well.


"If I invest in individual stocks I will, from time to time, sell stocks that aren't performing well. If the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, then the value of my portfolio has gone up by 10%, regardless of whether selling those stocks is labeled as ""delete[ing] failures"". Same thing for mutual funds: selling underperforming stocks is perfectly ordinary, and calling it ""delete[ing] failures"" in order to imply some sort of dishonesty is simply dishonest."


"Yes, there are situations where a stock is a bad buy in spite of a low PE. PE ratio tells you the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. It does not consider: Imagine someone walked up to you and said, ""Do you want to buy a piece of my business? I'll sell you 1% of it for $1000. Last year the business earned $25000."" A quick calculation shows a PE of 4 [$1000/($25000 *.01)]. Even though this PE is comparatively low, you wouldn't buy in without a lot more info. What kinds of things might you ask? PE is one tiny component of an informed investment decision."


You can't get there from here.  This isn't the right data.  Consider the following five-year history:  2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%.  That would give a 13% average annual return.  Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%.  That would give a 4% average annual return.   Notice anything about those numbers?  Two of them are in both series.  This isn't an accident.  The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier.  The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough.  You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well.  Because there will be bear markets.   Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want.  Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers:   But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened.  The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results.  This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year.   The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings.  With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation.  The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation.  So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks.  It's better to live off the interest if you can.  You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do.   From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take.  A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better.  Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation.  Maybe you could squeak through with ten.  But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.


There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some   situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option   before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just   before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more   than the option's remaining time value.  A put option will usually be   exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3]  A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a   lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be   exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable   than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the   strike.  An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as   some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a   coupon is due.  A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep   ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as   the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the   holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will   almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time   value).[citation needed]


the $5500 Roth IRA is not restricted to earned income, you can put whatever money you have tax free and gains free.


Given those assumptions (which I happen to think are reasonable) it seems to me the obvious place is to buy non-Australian assets, such as the Vanguard VTS (total US share market) and VEU (world ex-US) ETFs, and perhaps also some international fixed-interest ETFs.   I think keeping a certain amount of cash would be prudent anyhow. If you felt very sure this was going to happen, you could borrow in Australia and buy foreign assets, expecting that as the AUD falls, the relative cost of the borrowing will also fall.  This is obviously fairly risky, not least because Australian interest rates are already high and may go much higher, and while the rates go up the exchange rate will also likely go up. As I mentioned on another answer, I think buying gold or other commodity instruments is a poor choice here because the Australian economy and the AUD is so tied to those prices already.


If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading.  Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question.  It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime.  This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors.  So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech  ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit.  It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.


Consider searching locally for a rewards checking account.  There are some that must be opened nationally, but you can likely find a local bank (or perhaps even two) that offer these high yield checking accounts.  They will generally pay more than the interest you have on those cards. Try This site to see if one is offered locally to you. These accounts typically require the following:  In return you get higher interest rates, and most credit you ATM fees.  The amount is generally capped between 10K to 25K on the high interest rate, and you'll generally receive a small rate for anything above that. I'm in a smaller city, and I have one local, and one within a 45 minute drive.  If you have a job that allows for split direct deposits, this is even easier.  We never have any trouble knocking out the required debit transactions, but you MUST look at the balance as being an emergency fund, rather than a checking fund with an available balance.  If you find two near you, you can probably earn ~$130 a month in interest.  That's way more than you pay monthly...  I vote to put it to work for you before paying it off.


You will almost certainly be paying taxes in Czech Republic, short of being American of Eritrean, citizenship has little to no bearing on tax. If you are working from home, you will probably be a contractor. In Romania you would work through either an SRL or you would set up a PFA. Essentially a limited company or a sole trader. You will need to find the Czech equivalents. I would advise finding a small business accountant. They will be able to advise what is the most cost effective solution, in some countries (like my one) you can save considerable amounts of tax by working through a company. There is a link with some information.


"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online ""analyst"" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online."


My favorite story of a strategic default is from my friend who way overpaid for a house in the Bay Area. After the housing market fell, he bought a second home (with a separate mortgage), and THEN defaulted on the first house.   The lender on the first house knew that he bought a 2nd home recently, but they couldn't go after it because it was securing a mortgage to a different bank. His credit score was ruined, but it didn't matter to him because you only really need credit for a new mortgage and he already bought a new house.


Dividends are supposed to be paid from company profits (in the current or previous financial years), there are nuances around what profits mean from country to country, but the link is the UK definition from the HMRC. Profits from previous financial years are commonly called retained earnings. There are a few items around this