"You have a few correlated questions here:  Yes you can. There are only a few investment strategies that require a minimum contribution and those aren't ones that would get a blanket recommendation anyway. Investing in bonds or stocks is perfectly possible with limited funds. You're never too young to start. The power of interest means that the more time you give your money to grow, the larger your eventual gains will be (provided your investment is beating inflation). If your financial situation allows it, it makes sense to invest money you don't need immediately, which brings us to: This is the one you have to look at most. You're young but have a nice chunk of cash in a savings account. That money won't grow much and you could be losing purchasing power to inflation but on the other hand that money also isn't at risk. While there are dozens of investment options1 the two main ones to look at are: bonds: these are fixed income, which means they're fairly safe, but the downside is that you need to lock up your money for a long time to get a better interest rate than a savings account index funds that track the market: these are basically another form of stock where each share represents fractions of shares of other companies that are tracked on an index such as the S&P 500 or Nasdaq. These are much riskier and more volatile, which is why you should look at this as a long-term investment as well because given enough time these are expected to trend upwards. Look into index funds further to understand why. But this isn't so much about what you should invest in, but more about the fact that an investment, almost by definition, means putting money away for a long period of time. So the real question remains: how much can you afford to put away? For that you need to look at your individual situation and your plans for the future. Do you need that money to pay for expenses in the coming years? Do you want to save it up for college? Do you want to invest and leave it untouched to inspire you to keep saving? Do you want to save for retirement? (I'm not sure if you can start saving via IRAs and the like at your age but it's worth looking into.) Or do you want to spend it on a dream holiday or a car? There are arguments to be made for every one of those.  Most people will tell you to keep such a ""low"" sum in a savings account as an emergency fund but that also depends on whether you have a safety net (i.e. parents) and how reliable they are. Most people will also tell you that your long-term money should be in the stock market in the form of a balanced portfolio of index funds. But I won't tell you what to do since you need to look at your own options and decide for yourself what makes sense for you. You're off to a great start if you're thinking about this at your age and I'd encourage you to take that interest further and look into educating yourself on the investments options and funds that are available to you and decide on a financial plan. Involving your parents in that is sensible, not in the least because your post-high school plans will be the most important variable in said plan. To recap my first point and answer your main question, if you've decided that you want to invest and you've established a specific budget, the size of that investment budget should not factor into what you invest it in. 1 - For the record: penny stocks are not an investment. They're an expensive form of gambling."


"The ""easier"" way is to sell the house, and pay back the 95K to the mortgage company. Your taxable gain (if any) is calculated as the difference between the sales price minus the purchased price of 150K. There is a further deduction for any selling expenses, before you have to pay income tax. If you liquidate your other investments to raise the 95K and prepay the mortgage, you might realize, and be taxed on gains on **those ** investments. That's something you might not want. On the other hand, if you have some investments that can be liquidated at a loss, you might want to sell those to generate a tax loss, then prepay all or part of the 95K. Bear in mind that there are limitations of 3K a year for certain types of losses. So see a tax adviser before using this course of action."


what reason would I have in buying an ETF? Apart from the efforts, the real reason is the ticket size. One can't buy shares in fraction. To truly reflect the index in equal weight, the amount to invest will be in multiples of millions [depending on the Index and the stock composition]   This related question should help you understand why it is difficult even for large fund house to exactly mimic the index. Why do passive ETFs require so much trading (and incur costs)?


All other things being equal, you might be better off contributing to a IRA that is a brokerage account.  You will have lots of flexibility in your investments and there would probably not be fees for the account itself.  You might incur commissions for trading and/or owning mutual funds that are charged by the funds themselves.   You won't be able to borrow from an IRA, as opposed to a 401K.  IMHO, that is a good thing. Are you suggesting that you would withdraw early from a retirement account?  You'd probably be better off not doing that.  Assuming a large salary, you would be paying 43% to withdraw your money early.  Would you accept a loan at 43% interest?   You are probably better off not putting the money in in the first place to accomplish your goals, then withdrawing it early. Most people opt for a 401K for two reasons.  The company match and ease of investment make a compelling argument.  Keep in mind if a 401K is available to you, regardless if you particpate, you start phasing out your IRA deduction at 60K a year (single) or 96K (married).  Given your huge salary comments I imagine an IRA would not be an option in your scenario. Given that, if you leave a job, you can roll your 401K balance into a trading account.


I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive.  It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired.  His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low.  The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment.  Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns.


Same question had popped up in our office,and we got an answer from one of the senior colleague. He said that we can call it CARC (Compounded Annual Rate of Change).


"Typically investing in only two securities is not a good idea when trying to spread risk. Even though you are in the VTI which is spread out over a large amount of securites it should in theory reduce portfolio beta to zero, or in this case as close to it as possible. The VTI however has a beta of 1.03 as of close today in New York. This means that the VTI moves roughly in exact tandem as ""the market"" usually benched against the S&P 500, so this means that the VTI is slightly more volatile than that index. In theory beta can be 0, this would be akin to investing in T-bills which are 'assumed' to be the risk free rate. So in theory it is possible to reduce the risk in your portfolio and apply a more capital protective model. I hope this helps you a bit."


"The answer is, there are a lot of answers! It always seems so daunting to start saving when you're living paycheck to paycheck and anticipate more bills on the way (kids are expensive!!). Start small, and make it automatic if you can. If you can take $25 out of every paycheck and put it into a savings account, and do this automatically using your bank's Bill Pay system, that will go a long way. It's about setting up a new habit for yourself, and increasing as you can. One way I've heard it phrased is ""Pay yourself first"".  Don't set unrealistic expectations for yourself, either. You need to start building a savings account to cover emergencies, not just future purchases. If something happens and you can't get a paycheck for a week, a month, 2 months, how will you pay your bills? Set up a savings account just for that purpose and don't touch it unless it's a true emergency. There are several banks out there that will let you set up multiple savings accounts and mark them for specific purposes, like CapitalOne's 360 accounts. Set one up for the emergency account that gets your automatic per-paycheck deposit, then set up another one for ""fun money"" or ""new home fund"" or whatever else you want to save up for.  Starting the savings process is hard, no doubt about it. You need to learn how to budget with the money you have after ""paying yourself first"". But the important part is to stick with it. Consider your savings account as another ""mandatory"" utility. You have to pay it $25/mo or risk...I don't know...a smack on the back of the head. If you wait until the end of the month to see what you have left after everything else, you'll find you don't have anything left. If you can set it up through your bank so when you get your paycheck it automatically puts $25 into a savings account, then you'll never have that $25 burning a hole in your pocket. If your paychecks aren't direct deposit, and you're physically cashing them when you receive them, then tell the bank teller to put $25 into your savings account.  You can do it! Make sure your wife is on board and you communicate the importance of setting up a savings account and work together to make it happen. Be patient, and realize that $25 may seem like a trivial amount to put away now, but after 24 paychecks (1 year depending on pay schedule), that's $600! (Plus interest but rates are too low now to worth noting that)."


"Overoptimism, making mistakes and wrong assumptions, being taken by lies, all of that is legal and, in a lot of ways, very human and forgivable.  But when they ""buried her findings ... before, during and after the financial crisis, and even into 2012"" from senior management whose job it is to look out for bad investments, ""buying mortgages from outside lenders with doctored tax forms, phony appraisals and missing signatures"", ""systematically violating U.S. mortgage regulations"", and lying about losses while still taking money from the government, these are illegal and immoral practices with profit as a motive and with the knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.    Buying into something with all you've got is any business's prerogative.  Lying, manipulating, and willfully breaking the law, especially when the product and means to purchase directly impacts the customer, all to maximize profit is not."


it depends on you, thats just the point, how risk averse you are determines how wide your risk premium needs to be to as you feel adequately compensate you for the risk you are taking. If I have some money i inherited from grandad and I want to make 15% on it then my required rate is 15% on top of the risk free rate. Thats what I require. Alternatively you could use a historic market rate to to determine the markets required return since on average that should be correct allowing you to sell your asset later to the average market participant. Thats easy for the equity investment. Because you have two different asset classes for your investments you could use different discount rates using the historic market risk premium in each asset's market or you can use the same discount rate for both which makes it easier to compare. In the second case I would discount using the equity required return since the equity investment you are not making is the opportunity cost of your real estate investment.   At the end of the day its a value judgment in my opinion and there isn't a right. Your understanding of the economics and from that what is important will inform what you use as a discount rate and that value judgment is kindha where an analyst adds value.


At the end of each calendar year the mutual fund company will send you a 1099 form. It will tell you and the IRS what your account earned. You will see boxes for: You will end up paying taxes on these, unless the fund is part of a 401K or IRA. These taxes will be due even if you never sold any shares. They are due even if it was a bad year and the value of your account went down. Most if not all states will levy an income tax yon your dividends and capital gains each year. When you sell your shares you may also owe income taxes if you made a profit. The actual taxes due is a more complex calculation due to long term vs short term, and what other gains or losses you have. Partial sales also take into account which shares are sold.


"Check is an obligation to pay, and is unconditional. In the US, checks don't expire (there are countries where they do). Endorsements such as ""void after X days"" are meaningless and don't affect the obligation to pay. The bank is under no obligation to honor a check that is more than 6 months old (based on the date on the check, of course). This is from the Unified Commercial Code 4-404. However, this refers to the bank, not to the person who gave you the check. The bank may pay, if the check is deposited in good faith and there's nothing wrong with it or with the account. So the first thing you can do is deposit the check. If asked - you can say that the person just wrote the wrong date, which is true. Worst case the check bounces. If the check bounces - you can start with demand letters and small claim courts. The obligation to pay doesn't go away unless satisfied, i.e.: paid."


I believe so (that you can, not that you are greedy) I run my own business and, generally speaking, am 'charging' my company 40p per mile as per the quote above. I did not know about the ability to claim the shortfall, as it is not relevant to me, but it makes perfect sense and I'm sure that a phone call to HMRC will help you understand how to claim.  As for the greedy question - personally I think that laws are there for a reason (both ways) so if there's money to be claimed - there's no reason not to do so, unless of course the hassle is greater than the potential gain. One last note - not sure exactly what the rules around this are, but I know that the allowance is not applicable for one's general commute and so if you're travelling to the same place over 40% of the time for more than two years you are no longer allowed to claim these miles.


Employment, output and inflation are your feedback. Too little spending manifests as a an output gap with elevated unemployment and low inflation. Too much spending shows up as full employment, full capacity and rising inflation as additional dollars just bid up prices.  Get it right and you have full employment with price stability.  So are we there yet? Well, it's not a static point we reach and cross but a dynamic balance in every period based on what's going on in the non-government sectors. Lately we've been leaning towards too little and the result is a tepid, stagnant recovery dragging on for years with elevated unemployment, weak growth and a persistant [output gap](http://lostoutputclock.com/).


"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable ""Money Market"" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you ""instant access"" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities.   This is not exactly a perfect solution.  Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest.  In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest.  In the best case,  if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest."


Checks are normally numbered sequentially, to keep them unique for record-keeping purposes. The check number takes as many digits as it takes, depending on how long the account has been open and thus how many checks have been written.  The most recent check I looked at had a four-digit number, but as has been pointed out businesses may run through thousands  per year. I recommend storing this in an unsigned long or long-long, which will probably be comparable to the bank's own limits. I don't know whether there is an explicit maximum value; we would need to find someone who knows the banking standards to answer that.


It's a con being played upon the middle money people by the big money people and it's based on the Bernoulli Principle or Venturi Effect. Simply put -- and in analogous form -- if a lot of something goes in one direction, then a lot of other similar somethings will go in the same direction too. So, if a lot of big money gets invested into derivatives then other money will follow. That original big money is called the primer -- it primes the pump flow and gets the other money following it in. If the original money, the primer, gets removed from the process it doesn't stop the flow of other money into the flow because once the flow is going, any new money in the process acts like the original primer money, sucking in even more money; this is the Venturi Effect in action -- it's how most pumps work.  So, you prime the pump, get it flowing nicely, move your priming money out of the process and wait for the thing to suck out as much money as the economy can withstand and then *crash,* er, profit! If you've set your stakes correctly to benefit from the stopping of the flow -- the crash -- you can make billions with very little effort and practically no risk at all.


You could have both options exercised (and assigned to you) on the same day, but I don't think you could lose money on both on the same day. The reason is that while exercises are immediate, assignments are processed after the markets close at the end of each day. See http://www.888options.com/help/faq/assignment.jsp for details. So you would get both assignments at the same time, that night. The net effect should be that you don't own any stock (someone would put you the stock, then it'd be called away) and you don't have the options anymore. You should have incoming cash of $1500 selling the stock to the call exerciser and outgoing cash of $1300 buying from the put exerciser, right? So you would have no more options but $200 more cash in your account in the morning. You bought at 13 and sold at 15. This options position is an agreement to buy at 13 and sell at 15 at someone else's option. The way you lose money is if one of the options isn't exercised while the other is, i.e. if the stock is below 13 so nobody is going to opt to buy from you at 15, but they'll sell to you at 13; or above 15 so nobody is going to opt to sell to you at 13, but they'll buy from you at 15. You make money if neither is exercised (you keep the premium you sold for) or both are exercised (you keep the gap between the two, plus the premium). Having both exercised is surely rare, since early exercise is rare to begin with, and tends to happen when options are deep in the money; so you'd expect both to be exercised if both are deep in the money at some point. Having both be exercised on the same day ... can't be common, but it's maybe most likely just before expiration with minimal time value, if the stock moves around quickly so both options are in the money at some point during the day.


If you have made $33k from winning trades and lost $30k from loosing trades your net gain for the year would be $3k, so obviously you would pay taxes only on the net $3k gains.


In the USA, you probably owe Self Employment Tax. The cutoff for tax on this is 400$. You will need to file a tax return and cover the medicaid expenses as if you were both the employer and employee.  In addition, if he earns income from self-employment, he may owe Self-Employment Tax, which means paying both the employee’s and employer's share of Social Security and Medicaid taxes. The trigger for Self Employment Tax has been $400 since 1990, but the IRS may change that in the future. Also see the IRS website.  So yes, you need to file your taxes. How much you will pay is determined by exactly how much your income is.  If you don't file, you probably won't be audited, however you are breaking the law and should be aware of the consequences.


"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written ""The stock is down by 25%"", not ""down by -25%""."


"I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well."


This isn't a DIY area. You should talk to a lawyer about setting up a trust. Also, does the irresponsible person acknowledge that they are irresponsible? Are the legally competent? Or are you looking at a 20 year old with a big check coming down?


Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) were heavily neutered by U.S. tax laws a few years ago, and many companies have cut them way back. While discounts of 15% were common a decade ago, now a company can only offer negligible discounts of 5% or less (tax free), and you can just as easily get that from fluctuations in the market. These are the features to look for to determine if the ESPP is even worth the effort: As for a cash value, if a plan has at least one of those features, (and you believe the stock has real long term value), you still have to determine how much of your money you can afford to divert into stock. If the discount is 5%, the company is paying you an extra 5% on the money you put into the plan.


The creditors will not be able to go after his father's estate (assuming the father had nothing to do with the business), but at some point, the estate will be divided up. At that point, any money or assets that your husband inherits will be fair game, as they are now your husband's money or assets. I want to be clear; it's nothing to do with your husband being executor (or co-executor) of the estate. This does not contradict zeta-band's earlier answer; Zeta-band is talking about the estate before it is divided up, I'm just pointing out that there may be issues after it is divided up.


"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed.  Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes.  For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a ""Dummies"" link that is making a generalization.  For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do.  The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time."


Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc.  Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer.  But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?


There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons.  But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question.  Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps.


"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually.  The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000.  You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both.  For most people, this isn't the case.  Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH  Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest.   After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200.  ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31.  ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are  stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters.  Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment.   The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else.   Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is ""better"" than the market."


In this example you are providing 4x more collateral than you are borrowing.  Credit score shouldn't matter, regardless of how risky a borrower you are.  Sure it costs time and money to go to auction, but this can be factored into your interest rate / fees. I don't see how the bank can lose.


Berkshire Hathaway issues first ever-negative coupon security from back in 2002 had this part: The warrants will give the holder the right to purchase either shares   of the Company's class A or class B common stock at the holder’s   option. The initial exercise price represents a 15% premium over the   closing price of the class A shares on the NYSE on May 21, 2002. The   Notes will pay holders a 3.0% interest rate per annum and holders will   pay 3.75% installment payments per annum on the warrants. The warrant   payments due from holders will be greater than the coupon on the   senior notes, effectively making SQUARZ the first negative coupon   security. Berkshire Hathaway will use the net proceeds from the   issuance for general corporate purposes, including possible   acquisitions, none of which are pending. This would be an example where the strike price was 15% higher than the closing price yet the security sold well.


"This is going to depend on the tax jurisdiction and I have no knowledge of the rules in Illinois.  But I'd like to give you some direction about how to think about this.   The biggest problem that you might hit is that if you collect a single check and then distribute to the tutors, you may be considered their employer.  As an employer, you would be responsible for things like  This is not meant as an exhaustive list.   Even if not an employer, you are still paying them.  You would be responsible for issuing 1099 forms to anyone who goes above $600 for the year (source).   You would need to file for a taxpayer identification number for your organization, as it is acting as a business.  You need to give this number to the school so that they can issue the correct form to you.  You might have to register a ""Doing Business As"" name.  It's conceivable that you could get away with having the school write the check to you as an individual.  But if you do that, it will show up as income on your taxes and you will have to deduct payments to the other tutors.   If the organization already has a separate tax identity, then you could use that.  Note that the organization will be responsible for paying income tax.  It should be able to deduct payments to the tutors as well as marketing expenses, etc.   If the school will go for it, consider structuring things with a payment to your organization for your organization duties.  Then you tell the school how much to pay each tutor.  You would be responsible for giving the school the necessary information, like name, address, Social Security number, and cost (or possibly hours worked)."


So the bank can (theoretically) compare that signature to the ID you provide, showing that the names and signatures match and that you are the person to whom the check was written.


Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach:   Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash.  Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600.  If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x  If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x  So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple.


Your son is completely free to pay off your mortgage if he wants. However in most jurisdictions it counts as a gift to you, and will be subject to gift tax, or its equivalent. This is why the bank doesn't want to receive payments directly from your son, so that they are not caught up in the reporting of this. If you are in the US, this is a good page about Gift Tax.


Yes timing does matter. Using a simple Rate of Change indicator over the past 100 days and smoothed out with a 50 day Moving Average, I have plotted the S&P 500 since the start of 2007.  The idea is to buy when the ROC indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when the ROC indicator crosses below the zero line. I have compared the results below of timing the markets from the start of 2007 to dollar cost averaging starting from the start of 2007 and investing every 6 months. $80k is invested in both cases.  For the timing the market option $80k was invested at the start of 2007, then the total figure was sold out when a sell signal was given, then the total amount reinvested when a new buy signal was given. For the DCA option $5000 was invested every 6 months starting from the start of 2007 until the last investment at the start of July 2014. The results are below:  Timing the markets results in more than double the returns (not including dividends and brokerage). Edit It has been brought up that I haven't considered tax in my Timing the Market option. So I have updated my timing the market spread-sheet to take into account both long-term and short-term CGT in the USA for someone on the highest tax bracket. The results are below:  The result is still almost a 2x higher returns for the timing the markets option.  Also note that even with the DCA option you will have to sell one day and pay CGT on any profits there. However, the real danger with the DCA option is if you need to sell during a market downturn and not make any profits at all.


You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase?  I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them.  If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe


Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA?  They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other.  Which is relevant to your question because you said  the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k).   This is only true if you max out your contribution limits.  If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick.   Start with $10,000 to invest.  With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000.  With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it.  Let's assume a tax rate of 25%.  So invest $7500.   Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right).  So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000.   Now you withdraw them.  For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year.  It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year.  With the Roth, you have $120,000.  With the traditional, you have to pay tax.  Again, let's assume 25%.  So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional.  That is the same amount as the Roth!   So it would make sense to  If you can max out both, great.  You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it.  If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match.  That's free money.  Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k.   Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA.  Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax.  Alternate source.   Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement.  It may change other things.  For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes.  And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly.  You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are.  They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job).   If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution.  This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits.  Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.


It is absolutely worth it.  My wife and I have two of these accounts (different banks).  We are required to use our cards 20 times for one bank, and 15 for the other.  We have yet to miss the required transactions in a month (over 15 months of use now), and are actually considering getting a third account.  Between the two of us, we simply have to use our card on average once a day. Getting gas? Use your debit card. Getting stamps? Use your debit card? Self checkout? Use your debit card twice. Eating out? Use your debit card. If married, split the bill. As soon as we reach the minimum, we stop using the debit cards and switch to credit cards to further boost the rewards.  Maybe it's easier for us since we don't have kids and are out a lot, but 12 transactions is really simple to obtain.  We receive ~$100 a month from our two accounts, all for doing something we already do.


I am close to retirement and sell cash secured puts and covered calls on a regular basis.  I make 15 % plus per year from the puts.  Less risky than buying stocks, which I also do.  Riskier than bonds, but several times the income. Example:  I owned 4,000 shares of XYZ, which I bought last year at 6.50 and was at 7.70 two months ago.  I sold 3,000 shares, sold 10 Dec puts @ 7.50 (1,000 shares) for $.90 per share and sold 10 Dec calls at 10.00 for $.20.  Now I had cash from the sale of 3,000 shares ($23,100) plus $900 cash from the sale of the puts, plus $200 cash from the sale of the calls.  Price is now at 6.25.  Had I held the 4,000 shares, I would be down $5,800 from when it was 7.70. Instead, I am down $1,450 from the held 1,000 shares, down $550 on the put and up $200 on the calls.  So down $1,800 instead of down $5,800.  I began buying XYZ back at 6.25 today.


I was only able to find Maryland form 1 to fit your question, so I'll assume you're referring to this form. Note the requirement: Generally all tangible personal property owned, leased, consigned or   used by the business and located within the State of Maryland on   January 1, 201 must be reported. Software license (whether time limited or not, i.e.: what you consider as rental vs purchase) is not tangible property, same goes to the license for the course materials. Note, with digital media - you don't own the content, you merely paid for the license to use it. Design books may be reportable as personal tangible property, and from your list that's the only thing I think should be reported. However, having never stepped a foot in Maryland and having never seen (or even heard of) this ridiculous form before, I'd suggest you verify my humble opinion with a tax adviser (EA/CPA) licensed in the State of Maryland to confirm my understanding of this form.


gnasher729's answer is fundamentally correct and deserves the checkmark, but I'd like to give an economic explanation for how this economically functions. The key point from gnasher729's answer's that the interest rate is 49.9% for one company. While this may be much higher than the equilibrium rate, the true market interest rate, it is not completely unreasonable because of the risk. For credit to be continually produced, default risk must be compensated because this is a cost to the lender.  Most are not in business to lose money, so making loans to borrowers that default 40% of the time would make this interest rate reasonable. For UK citizens, this would not be such a problem because the lender can usually pursue the borrower for the balance, but if the borrower can disavow the loan and leave the legal reach of the UK creditors, the collection rate is 0%. The guarantee by the foreign persons not present in the UK is incidental and probably more of a regulatory requirement since the inability to collect from them is just as unlikely. One should always look for the lowest price with at least minimum quality when shopping for anything, but you are right to be apprehensive legally.  Read every line and be sure that you yourself understand every clause before signing. If alternative cheaper financing is available, it is probably superior.


You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund].   A note on each of these investments:  LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return.  NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years.  PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable.  ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately.  ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF.  Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.


This is Rob Bennett, the fellow who developed the Valuation-Informed Indexing strategy and the fellow who is discussed in the comment above. The facts stated in that comment are accurate -- I went to a zero stock allocation in the Summer of 1996 because of my belief in Robert Shiller's research showing that valuations affect long-term returns. The conclusion stated, that I have said that I do not myself follow the strategy, is of course silly. If I believe in it, why wouldn't I follow it? It's true that this is a long-term strategy. That's by design. I see that as a benefit, not a bad thing. It's certainly true that VII presumes that the Efficient Market Theory is invalid. If I thought that the market were efficient, I would endorse Buy-and-Hold. All of the conventional investing advice of recent decades follows logically from a belief in the Efficient Market Theory. The only problem I have with that advice is that Shiller's research discredits the Efficient Market Theory. There is no one stock allocation that everyone following a VII strategy should adopt any more than there is any one stock allocation that everyone following a Buy-and-Hold strategy should adopt. My personal circumstances have called for a zero stock allocation. But I generally recommend that the typical middle-class investor go with a 20 percent stock allocation even at times when stock prices are insanely high. You have to make adjustments for your personal financial circumstances. It is certainly fair to say that it is strange that stock prices have remained insanely high for so long. What people are missing is that we have never before had claims that Buy-and-Hold strategies are supported by academic research. Those claims caused the biggest bull market in history and it will take some time for the widespread belief in such claims to diminish. We are in the process of seeing that happen today.  The good news is that, once there is a consensus that Buy-and-Hold can never work, we will likely have the greatest period of economic growth in U.S. history. The power of academic research has been used to support Buy-and-Hold for decades now because of the widespread belief that the market is efficient. Turn that around and investors will possess a stronger belief in the need to practice long-term market timing than they have ever possessed before. In that sort of environment, both bull markets and bear markets become logical impossibilities. Emotional extremes in one direction beget emotional extremes in the other direction. The stock market has been more emotional in the past 16 years than it has ever been in any earlier time (this is evidenced by the wild P/E10 numbers that have applied for that entire time-period). Now that we are seeing the losses that follow from investing in highly emotional ways, we may see rational strategies becoming exceptionally popular for an exceptionally long period of time. I certainly hope so! The comment above that this will not work for individual stocks is correct. This works only for those investing in indexes. The academic research shows that there has never yet in 140 years of data been a time when Valuation-Informed Indexing has not provided far higher long-term returns at greatly diminished risk. But VII is not a strategy designed for stock pickers. There is no reason to believe that it would work for stock pickers. Thanks much for giving this new investing strategy some thought and consideration and for inviting comments that help investors to understand both points of view about it. Rob


If we're including psychological considerations, then the question becomes much more complicated: will having a higher available credit increase the temptation to spend? Will eliminating 100% of a small debt provide more positive reinforcement than paying off 15% of a larger debt? Etc. If we're looking at the pure financial impact, the question is simpler. The only advantage I see to prioritizing the lower interest card is the float: when you buy something on a credit card, interest is often calculated for that purchase starting at the beginning of the next billing cycle, rather than immediately from the purchase date. I'm not clear on what policies credit card companies have on giving float for credit cards with a carried balance, so you should look into what your card's policy is.  Other than than, paying off the higher interest rate card is better than paying off the lower interest rate. On top of that, you should look into whether you qualify for any of the following options (presented from best to worst):


You are currently $30k in debt.  I realize it is tempting to purchase a new car with your new job, but increasing your debt right now is heading in the wrong direction.  Adding a new monthly payment into your budget would be a mistake, in my opinion. Here is what I would suggest.  Since you have $7k in the bank, spend up to $6k on a nice used car.  This will keep $1k in the bank for emergencies, and give you transportation without adding debt and a monthly payment.  Then you can focus on knocking out the student loans.   Won't it be nice when those student loans are gone?  By not going further into debt, you will be much closer to that day.  New cars are a luxury that you aren't in a position to splurge on yet.


The simple answer is that you have to read the terms and conditions when you sign up for a checking account at the bank. The process of fraud investigation varies from bank to bank.  Ultimately most banks will refund the money if you are not deemed negligent. Some banks offer quick reimbursement during fraud claims, but many will not refund the money until the investigation is complete (which can take several weeks). Checking accounts are terrible security problems. If you're looking for ways to avoid a hassle, stop writing checks and using ATM/Debit cards. If you must send checks to pay bills, use the bill-pay system that is now common with most banks (they use a service to send checks on your behalf and don't even charge you for postage unless you ask for expedited processing).


It's not really that useful as a currency right now though, is it?    Leaving aside that you could only spend it in certain locations or the time it would take for a transaction to be confirmed, the fact that every transaction in which you pay with Bitcoin counts as a realization of the capital gain would make it quite cumbersome for most anyone to actually use it as a currency.  Then there's the issue of the fluctuating price of a bitcoin, which would make using it as a pricing mechanism quite cumbersome as well.


I've looked into Thinkorswim; my father uses it. Although better than eTrade, it wasn't quite what I was looking for. Interactive Brokers is a name I had heard a long time ago but forgotten. Thank you for that, it seems to be just what I need.


Yes you do. You're under the jurisdiction of at least one country where you're resident, or where you're citizen. You may be under jurisdiction of more than one country. Each country has its own laws about what and how should be taxed and countries have treaties between them to resolve jurisdiction issues and double taxation situations, so you should talk to a tax accountant licensed to provide you with an advice.


"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the ""the leverage effect"". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s   volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns.   Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining   volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible   economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976)   and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become   mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt   rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to   expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market."


200% margin for a short sale is outrageous. You should only need to put up 150% margin, of which 50% is your money, and the 100% is the proceeds.  With $100 of your money, you should be able to buy $100 of GOOG and short $100 of PNQI.


This can be best explained with an example. Bob thinks the price of a stock that Alice has is going to go down by the end of the week, so he borrows a share at $25 from Alice. The current price of the shares are $25 per share. Bob immediately sells the shares to Charlie for $25, it is fair, it is the current market price. A week goes by, and the price does fall to $20. Bob buys a share from David at $20. This is fair, it is the current market value. Then Bob gives the share back to Alice to settle what he borrowed from her, one share. Now, in reality, there is interest charged be Alice on the borrowed value, but to keep it simple, we'll say she was a friend and it was a zero interest loan. So then Bob was able to sell something he didn't own for $25 and return it spending $20 to buy it, settling his loan and making $5 in the transaction. It is the selling to Charlie and buying from David (or even Charlie later, if he decided to dump the shares), without having invested any of your own money that earns the profit.


"I don't have anything definitive, but in general positions in a company are not affected materially by what is called a corporate action. ""Corp Actions"" can really be anything that affects the details of a stock. Common examples are a ticker change, or exchange change, IPO (ie a new ticker), doing a split, or merging with another ticker. All of these events do not change the total value of people's positions. If a stock splits, you might have more shares, but they are worth less per share. A merger is quite similar to a split. The old company's stock is converted two the new companies stock at some ratio (ie 10 shares become 1 share) and then converted 1-to-1 to the new symbol. Shorting a stock that splits is no different. You shorted 10 shares, but after the split those are now 100 shares, when you exit the position you have to deliver back 100 ""new"" shares, though dollar-for-dollar they are the same total value. I don't see why a merger would affect your short position. The only difference is you are now shorting a different company, so when you exit the position you'll have to deliver shares of the new company back to the brokerage where you ""borrowed"" the shares you shorted."


If the question is where banks get the money used to pay interest they owe: they do so by lending that money to us at a higher interest rate. They make a gross profit from the interest we pay, they pass part of that to their depositors as interest, part of it goes to service their own debts, part of it may go to stockholders as dividends, and the rest is net profit.


Here's a great Canadian college/university cost calculator I used; found at Canadian Business - they say: Our tool is divided into three easy   steps. First, calculate the tuition   cost for the university and faculty   you wish to attend. Then, calculate any additional fees   for residence (on campus student   housing), meal plans, athletics,   health and student services. This will   give you the total cost a student will   pay at a Canadian university in   2006/7. Once you know the total annual cost,   take the third step to calculate the   total cost for the duration of the   course of study. Of course, this only calculates what it will cost you NOW, not eighteen years from now, but it's a good start :)


"Find approximate housing-cost difference, which is likely to swamp the tax differences. Find a cost-of-living measurement you believe for each state and figure appropriate state's sales tax on the non-housing portion of it (numbers can be found on line). Figure out roughly what your state income tax would be (forms on line). Figure city sales tax for each city you'd live in (again, numbers on line). Determine transportation cost differences. Determine entertainment cost differences (""First prize: one week in Hackensack. Second prize: TWO weeks!"")  Mix and add seasonings to taste... Then remember that many people commute into the City, including from NJ, so run the numbers that way... and think about how much time you're willing to spend communting every day (and via which forms of transportation); the worse the commute, the less housing costs. Then remember that companies in NYC are aware of all the above, and are likely to adjust their salaries to partly offset it... because otherwise they couldn't recruit anyone who wasn't already a Noo Yawker... so the real question here is whether their adjustment, plus not living in Noo Joisey, is enough to make up the difference for you. To get more accuracy than that, you need to start nailing down specifics. Possible. Not trivial."


This looks correct to me, for simple interest. If you are dealing with compound interest, the formula would be: So, A = 500000(1+0.036/365)^(30), or 501,481.57, or an interest of 1481.57, assuming the 3.6% is the annual nominal interest rate and it is compounded daily. Note that you are ignoring the depreciation and also ignoring the percentage of customers who will forfeit their debt in the 30 - 60 day period.


The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling.  Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down.  The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them.  After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1.  He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2.  He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit.  Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400.  He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.


Why is it that people spend more time pricing their newest phone plan than their house, or educational costs.  You see students going to law school who have never job shadowed a real lawyer to even see what reality looks like and have no idea the real job prospects.  I'd feel bad, but it takes so little leg work and planning to keep yourself from self imposed financial doom.


I'm not sure that you're considering all the options.   So you may not subtract $X from B, but you do compare NPV(B) to $Y.   Also, remember that we're not trying to figure out the return on B.  We're trying to figure out what to do next.  In terms of planning, the sunk cost is irrelevant.  But in terms of calculating return, A was a turkey.  And to calculate the return, we would include $X in our costs for B.  And for the second option, we'd subtract $X from $Y (may be negative).   Sunk costs are irrelevant to planning, but they are very relevant to retrospective analysis.  Please don't confuse the two.  When looking back, part of the cost for B will be that $X.  But in the middle, after paying $X and before starting B, the $X is gone.  You only have the building and have to make your decision based on the options you have at that moment.   You will sometimes hear $Y called the opportunity cost of B.  You could sell out for $Y or you could do B.  You should only do B if it is worth more than $Y.   The sunk cost fallacy would be comparing B to $X.  Assuming $Y is less than $X, this would make you not do B when it is your best path forward from that moment.  I.e. $Y < NPV(B) < $X means that you should do the project.  You will lose money (apparently that's a foregone conclusion), but you will lose less money than if you just sold out.   You should also do B if $Y < $X < NPV(B) or $X < $Y < NPV(B).  In general, you should do B any time $Y < NPV(B).  The only time you should not do B is if NPV(B) < $Y.  If they are exactly equal, then it doesn't matter financially whether you do B or not.


Because you're not married, its a partnership agreement, and unless there's a written contract, either the two of you agree on how to handle the home, or it's off to court you go. If you were both supposed to pay for the home, and he failed to for a a while, that would put him in breach of contract which I would think gives you a good position in court. On the other hand, if you are at all concerned about your safety from this louse, remember, he knows exactly where the house is.


"Contribute as much as you can.  When do you want to retire and how much income do you think you'll need? A $1M portfolio yielding 5% will yield $50,000/year. Do some research about how to build a portfolio... this site is a good start, but check out books on retirement planning and magazines like Money and Kiplinger. If you don't speak ""money"" or are intimidated by investing, look for a fee-based financial advisor whom you are comfortable with."


"Where are you from? The Netherlands has tax treaties with different countries that may offer you some additional options. The Netherlands calculates a maximum tax free contribution to your pension each year based on your income. If you contributed less than you were allowed to (pensioengat), you can invest the difference between your actual and allowed contributions in special retirement investments that usually offer tax advantages. A gap like this can be due to getting a bonus or a raise. After looking around, the investments available are either a special savings account (banksparen) or an annuity (lijfrente).  Your allowed contributions to both will be tax deductible and the investment itself is excluded from wealth tax (box 3 taxes).  I also see Aegon offering an ""investment annuity"" that lets you invest in any of 7 of their mutual funds until a certain date at which time you liquidate and use the proceeds to fund an annuity. With the Dutch retirement options, wou will not in general get the same freedom of choice or low costs associated with IRAs in the US.  I'm not sure about ISAs in the UK.  It's also important to check any tax agreements between countries to ensure your chosen investment vehicle gets the tax advantaged treatment in your home country as it does in the Netherlands.  For US citizens, this is important even when living abroad.  For others, it is important if you return to your home country and still have this investment. If you are a US citizen, you have an additional option.  The US / Dutch tax treaty allows you to make these contributions to preexisting (i.e. you had these before moving to NL) retirement accounts in the US like an IRA. Note that in practice it may be difficult to contribute to an existing Roth IRA because you would need to have earned income after the foreign income tax deduction but less than the maximum income for a Roth contribution."


It's income. It's almost certainly subject to income tax. As miscellaneous income, if nothing else. (That's what hobby income usually falls under.) If you kept careful records of the cost of developing the app, you might be able to offset those against the income... again, as with hobby income.


"Now store the money in -- okay here, think about a realistic worst case scenario.  Not zombie attack or meteor mega-strike, but the kinds  in which you are not entirely helpless: job loss stacked on top of the worst recession since the Great Depression, along with credit drying up so you can't just borrow your way through the hard times.   Store the money in an account and investment which is  relatively liquid, meaning you could extract cash value from it fairly easily in a worst case scneario.  Safe -- essentially impossible to lose significant value in a worst case scenario.  (or, you only count the part of its value that's sure to be there in a worst case.) If you're much too cool for an emergency fund, then sorry to waste your valuable time!    For the rest of us, it's a planning tool.   Even dot-coms do this: it's called a ""burn-rate"" and they know exactly how many more weeks their VC can fund operations.    Of course in practicality, it may not go to X months of routine expenses. Most of it may get burned up in month 2 on a new transmission.  You can't really predict this stuff, the ""X month"" paradigm is just an arm-wave.   For the financially uneducated, it's also a training tool.   In the US, school does not provide financial education.  Most people get financial habits from their parents, and like most family lessons, they are deeply emotionally wired, even if they are unconscious of that fact.  For instance, some people don't ask for the salaries they deserve, and spend lavishly until the checkbook is zero - they literally push money away.  Suffice it to say, it's a challenge to get some people to even realize that savings is a thing, when they have never in their whole lives been able to hold onto more than $20 for more than a week. The concept of an emergency fund is a sellable way to break through that ""I can't save"" mental-block. So I can see where you might think the emergency fund is greasy kidstuff.   Fair.  But it's not just that, it's also a very practical planning tool."


You won't be paying any taxes for income generated in the US as long as you are not-resident in India. You pay US taxes. You can file a null return in India just in case (all zeroes). If you have any income in India - bank deposits in your name, house rental income and so on - that needs to be declared and tax needs to be paid in India.


"The expression ""in debt"" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts.    A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc).   So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means ""in debt"" is not necessarily a statement about net worth."


It's important to remember what a share is.  It's a tiny portion of ownership of a company. Let's pretend we're talking about shares in a manufacturing company.  The company has one million shares on its register.  You own one thousand of them.  That means that you own 1/1000th of the company. These shares are valued by the market at $10 per share.  The company has machinery and land worth $1M.  That means that for every dollar of the company you own, 10c of that value is backed by the physical assets of the company.  If the company closed shop tomorrow, you could, in theory at least, get $1 back per share.  The other $9 of the share value is value based on speculation about the future and current ability of the company to grow and earn income. The company is using its $1M in assets and land to produce goods which cost the company $1M in ongoing costs (wages, marketing, raw cost of goods etc...) to produce and make $2M per year in sales.  That means the company is making a profit of $1M per annum (let's assume for the sake of simplicity that this profit is after tax). Now what can the company do with its $1M profit?  It can hand it out to the owners of the company (which means you would get a $1 dividend each year for each share that you own) or it can re-invest that money into additional equipment, product lines or something which will grow the business.  The dividend would be nice, but if the owners bought $500k worth of new machinery and land and spent another $500k on ongoing costs and next year we would end up with a profit of $1.5M. So in ten years time, if the company paid out everything in dividends, you would have doubled your money, but they would have machines which are ten years older and would not have grown in value for that entire time.  However, if they reinvested their profits, the compounding growth will have resulted in a company many times larger than it started. Eventually in practice there is a limit to the growth of most companies and it is at this limit where dividends should be being paid out.  But in most cases you don't want a company to pay a dividend.  Remember that dividends are taxed, meaning that the government eats into your profits today instead of in the distant future where your money will have grown much higher. Dividends are bad for long term growth, despite the rather nice feeling they give when they hit your bank account (this is a simplification but is generally true). TL;DR - A company that holds and reinvests its profits can become larger and grow faster making more profit in the future to eventually pay out.  Do you want a $1 dividend every year for the next 10 years or do you want a $10 dividend in 5 years time instead?


We offer a far reaching scope of services including review and affirmation, bookkeeping, duty and business admonitory to customers extending from little nearby customers to huge multinational organizations. Further, through our VALIS Group Inc participation, we can join nearby mastery with the information and experience of individual VALIS Group Inc individuals around the world. The procedure Same day company formation of organization fuse in Wilmington, DE doesn't take long if every one of the reports are legitimately submitted and it can last half a month. The outside business visionaries must pick the correct sort of organization to build up considering different perspectives, for example, the offer capital, the destinations and the aggregate number of shareholders.


If your criteria has changed but some of your existing holdings don't meet your new criteria you should eventually liquidate them, because they are not part of your new strategy. However, you don't want to just liquidate them right now if they are currently performing quite well (share price currently uptrending).  One way you could handle this is to place a trailing stop loss on the stocks that don't meet your current criteria and let the market take you out when the stocks have stopped up trending.


Itunes U has some really good online classes on economics. And as with a lot of things check out Khanacademy.org. He has a whole financial section of really well made videos.   Good books to read regarding the financial crisis are The Big Short by Lewis and Too Big To Fail by Sorkin.


I choose lifecycle funds because I am placing faith (perhaps foolishly) that a full time fund manager knows better what to pick than I.  The same reason I go with mutual funds in general apply to to why I also have the lifecycle funds.  Presently my diversification strategy is really just index funds and lifecycle funds. The radio advice guy Clark Howard often promotes them. http://www.wacotrib.com/none/content/shared/money/stories/clark/0601/060425money.html (I count in the intimidated group)


There's a lot going on here. I'd be making the maximum ($5500 for a single person under 50) contribution to the Roth IRA each year. Not too late to put in for 2014 before Wednesday, 4/15.  Not out of your income, but from the T Rowe Price account. As long as you have earned income, you can make an IRA deposit up to the limit, 5500, or up to that income. The money itself can come from other funds. Just explain to Dad, you're turning the money into a long term retirement account. I doubt that will trouble him.  Aside from that, too much will change when you are out of school. At 18, it's a matter of learning to budget, save what you can, don't get into debt for stupid things. (Stupid, not as I would judge, but as the 25 year old you will judge.)


If you are looking for a professional firm to represent you in an honest, legal, comprehensive, and timely fashion, where customer service and support is second to none, then you owe it yourself to have us here at Legacy Legal Services handle your credit issues.


"It's only a ""loss"" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns.  But that's simply not true.  An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing.  That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything.  Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index.  By being a ""passive investor"" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in.  If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes.  For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders.  If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable.  Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing.  So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't?  What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it?  Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent.  If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&P 500, *plus* Snap, then just do that.  For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap.  It's that simple.  But don't make this out to be a story about how S&P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors.  That's ridiculous.  If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies.  Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a ""good company"".  S&P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent.  You wanna buy shares with no voting rights?  Go for it.  But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes."


The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.


Here's a start at a high level: I have a few friends who have made a killing on GLD, and write options to make money off of the investment without incurring the capital gains penalties for selling. That's a little out of my comfort zone though.


Using any simulator will never be exactly the same as real trading.  One reason is that a simulator will always execute your trades at the exact price you want, but that may not always happen in real life. For example, if you place a limit order to buy 1000 shares of a stock at 10.50, and the price drops down to exactly 10.50, then the simulator will execute your trade and you will have 1000 shares at 10.50.  But in real life, the price of the stock may drop to 10.50, but other people may have buy orders ahead of you.  If the price of the stock drops to 10.50 but then starts going up again, you may not get all the shares that you wanted (or you may not even get any shares at all) due to the fact that people were ahead of you. In real trading there is also slippage, which you don't see in a simulator.  For example, if you have a stop order to sell 1000 shares of a stock if it drops to 7.50, then the simulator will sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if the price drops to 7.50.  But in real trading, if the price drops to 7.50, then you may not be able to sell all 1000 shares at 7.50 if there's not enough liquidity or the market is moving very fast.  You may end up selling 100 shares at 7.50, 100 shares at 7.49, 100 shares at 7.48, 50 shares at 7.47, 50 shares at 7.46, 200 shares at 7.45, and 400 shares at 7.44. Another thing is that you don't experience the emotional aspect of trading with a simulator.  If you buy a stock in a simulator and it goes down, it's not real money, so you may be more willing to hold it and wait for it to come back up.  But if you are trading real money and the stock goes down, you may not be so willing to hold if it goes down.  You may be more apt to sell the stock for a small loss before the loss gets too big.


"While you'd need to pay tax if you realized a capital gain on the sale of your car, you generally can't deduct any loss arising from the sale of ""personal use property"". Cars are personal use property. Refer to Canada Revenue Agency – Personal-use property losses.  Quote: [...] if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that   loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you   cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use   property. This is because if a property depreciates through personal   use, the resulting loss on its disposition is a personal expense. There are some exceptions. Read up at the source links."


"That sounds about right. However, and this is just a quibble, it's not 90m notional of swap, or at least I've not heard it expressed quite that way for a total return instrument... generally I hear the word exposure, in this case the # of ""shares"" purchased at a specific index level. So 90mm exposure in S&P 500 at today's closing price is: 90,000,000 / 2411.8 = a swap on 37, 317 shares.  If you want to maintain the 90mm exposure month to month, you will structure the instrument with a ""variable notional"". At each reset, the swap's # of shares will vary inversely with the index level to maintain the 90mm exposure.  You rightly point out that the financing is based on the 90mm figure.  As a final note, the dealer may also guarantee some profit by quoting a spread between the swap's initial index levels, depending on whether the portfolio wants to go long or short the index."


You can't write exempt because according to the instructions on the W-4 I claim exemption from withholding for 2015, and I certify that I meet   both of the following conditions for exemption. You don't meet the second condition. But you can increase the number of allowance to reduce the amount of taxes. Just make sure you put enough money aside into a savings account so that you can pay the taxes in the spring.


It depends how much risk you're prepared to accept. The short-term risk-free rate of return at present is something in the vicinity of 0.1% (three month US treasuries are currently yielding 0.08%), so anything paying a higher rate on money that's accessible quickly will involve some degree of risk -- the higher the rate then the higher the risk.


"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (""OJ"") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This ""zeros his position"" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of ""Trading Places"" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the ""Eddie Murphy rule"", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information."


Pay off the Highest interest loan rate first. You must be doing something funky with how long your terms are... If you give a bit more info about your loan's such as the term and how much extra you have right now to spend it could be explained in detail why that would be the better choice using your numbers. You have to make sure when you are analyzing your different loan options that you make sure you are comparing apples to apples. IE make sure that you are either comparing the present value, future value or amortization payments...  EDIT: using some of your numbers lets say you have 5000 dollars in your pocket you have 3 options. excel makes these calculations easier... Do nothing: in 80 months your Student Loan will be payed in full and you will have 54676.08 owing on your mortgage and 5000 in your pocket(assuming no bank interest)  for mortgage: Pay off Student loan and allocate Student loans amortization to Mortgage: in 80 months you will have $47,910.65 owing on mortgage and student loan will be paid in full For mortgage: Pay 5000 on Mortgage: in 80 months student loan will be paid in full and you will have $48,204.92 owing on mortgage For mortgage:


outstanding shares are the shares(regular shares) that are still tradable in the market, where the firm in question is listed. The term is primarily used to distinguish from shares held in treasury(treasury stock), which have been bought back(buybacks) from the market and aren't currently tradable in the market. Wikipedia is a bit more clearer and mentions the diluted outstanding shares(used for convertible bonds, warrants, etc) which is used to calculated diluted EPS.


"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now.  In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also  mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not ""pure stocks"": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done ""by hand,"" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard.  (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice."


"The way I am trading this is:  I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens).  I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively ""safe"" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure."


The problem is that you don't have the money now; so they can't know with 100% certainty that you will have it on settlement day.  What happens if you don't file the paperwork in time? or you change your mind because you think the company stock is going to go through the roof next quarter? They would have to pull the funding for the loan. The seller would be upset, and could even file for damages if the deal falls through.  It could even snowball because if they delay the sale then they can't buy the new place, which impacts another closing... Frequently lenders want to see the money for the down payment long before settlement.  They want to know the money is there, and it isn't a hidden loan. While you can point to the money in the ESPP, they would still like to see the money in a regular bank account. Even if you do convince them to delay their evaluation you can count on being asked to prove the existence of the funds in the days before closing, or they will delay giving the loan.


Yes, PMI is what the lender requires to loan you more than 8O% of the home's value. I could easily present scenarios where it's exactly the right decision to use PMI and get the purchase done. A 100K mortgage at 90% LTV will cost you $521/year in PMI.  If you are renting and struggling to get a higher downpayment, it can take quite a long time to save the additional $11K to put down. Only the buyer can know if the house is such s bargain, or if rates have bottomed, but the decision isn't so clear cut.


Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY.  A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends.  The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.


If the stock starts to go down DO NOT SELL!! My reasoning for this is because, when you talk about the stock market, you haven't actually lost any money until you sell the stock. So if you sell it lower than you bought it, you loose money. BUT if you wait for the stock to go back up again, you will have made money.


"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of ""profit"" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation."


LendingClub.com  I am an investor, 3 years now, and am making ~12%.  It takes a little savvy and some research, but I'm getting a far better return than any typical investment today.  As always, investors beware.  If you dump your money in and don't invest wisely, you'll get taken for a ride.


"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if ""The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made."" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:"


It's harder than you think.  Once card companies start seeing your debt to credit line ratios climb, they will slash your credit lines quickly. Also, cash credit lines are always much smaller, so in reality, such a scheme would require you to buy goods that can be converted to cash, which dilutes your gains and makes it more likely that you're going to get detected and busted. Think of the other problems. Where do you store your ill-gotten gains? How do you get the money out of the country? How will your actions affect your family and friends? Also, most people are basically good people -- the prospect of defrauding $100k, leaving family and friends behind and living some anonymous life in a third world country isn't an appealing one. If you are criminally inclined, building up a great credit history is not very practical -- most criminals are by nature reactive and want quick results.


The only ways to increase your after-tax income are to increase your tax-deferred savings (401k), increase your tax deductions, or increase your pre-tax income. Increasing tax-deferred savings is great for the long term, but will usually not result in a bigger paycheck (though net pay including the savings will go up). This is, however, probably your best bet for reducing current tax liability. Increasing deductions usually involves spending money--on charity, mortgage interest, other taxes, etc. So, while you may reduce your tax liability, you probably won't end up with more money in your pocket. Also, if you are single and aren't paying a mortgage, it probably won't be easy to exceed the Standard Deduction. Which pretty much leaves you with asking for a raise, getting a better paying job, or taking on a second job to increase your top-line income.


Why does it take two weeks (from ex-date) for dividends to pay out? For logistical and accounting purposes. This article says on the payment date: This date is generally a week or more after the date of record so that the company has sufficient time to ensure that it accurately pays all those who are entitled. It is for the same reasons that there is a often a two-week period between the time an employee submits her time sheet and the employee's pay date. The company needs time to set and send the payment while minimizing accounting errors.


You can easily build a Google Sheet spreadsheet to track what you want as Sheet has a 'googlefinance()' function to look-up the same prices and data you can enter and track in a Google Finance portfolio, except you can use it in ways you want. For example, you can track your purchase price at a fixed exchange rate, track the current market value as the product of the stock's price times the floating exchange rate, and then record your realized profit and loss using another fixed exchange rate.  You don't have to record the rates either, as googlefinance() func is able to lookup prices as of a particular date. You can access Google Sheet through a web browser or Android app.


I would like to add to the answer provided by Dheer. I think under some ULIPs you need not pay premium after 3 years and you can take the money back after 5 years (something like that, read your policy statement of course). Since the money is invested in Stock markets and since generally people say the longer money stays in stocks, the better; you can keep the money with them without taking it back and without paying any further premium. That way, whatever you paid will be invested and you can get it back later when you feel you will make a profit.


"Profitable by design on slide 7, haha.  Yeah, no.  That's because you're purposely leaving out the maintenance and upkeep for the vehicles in the ""not yours fleet"", don't have ""drivers"" but instead contractors, and you thought you wouldn't have to pay taxes or fees in local cities for your ""not taxis""."


A 1040X is the form and instructions you need.  Don't worry you can rescind the $3 presidential campaign contribution for both you and a spouse.


On Monday, the 27th of June 2011, the XIV ETF underwent a 10:1 share split. The Yahoo Finance data correctly shows the historic price data adjusted for this split.  The Google Finance data does not make the adjustment to the historical data, so it looks like the prices on Google Finance prior to 27 June 2011 are being quoted at 10 times what they should be.   Coincidentally, the underlying VIX index saw a sudden surge on the Friday (24 June) and continued on the Monday (27 June), the date that the split took effect.  This would have magnified the bearish moves seen in the historic price data on the XIV ETF. Here is a link to an article detailing the confusion this particular share split caused amongst investors.  It appears that Google Finance was not the only one to bugger it up.  Some brokers failed to adjust their data causing a lots of confusion amongst clients with XIV holdings at the time. This is a recurring problem on Google Finance, where the historic price data often (though not always) fails to account for share splits.


"As a legal contract, a mortgage is a form of secured debt. In the case of a mortgage, the debt is secured using the property asset as collateral. So ""no"", there is no such thing as a mortgage contract without a property to act as collateral. Is it a good idea?  In the current low interest rate environment, people with good income and credit can obtain a creditline from their bank at a rate comparable to current mortgage rates.  However, if you wish to setup a credit line for an amount comparable to a mortgage, then you will need to secure it with some form of collateral."


You can start a software company. Than your office will be around the world and you can work whenever you want. If you can appoint some people who can collect work from here and there and the coder around the world can give you the job done(this can be done by posting your work in various freelancing site). It is challenging, because you have to get yourself up-to-date with the technological things.