I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was reported  as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income  tax was not withheld.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying  was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms.  If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion,  then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes  on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as  of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns.    My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash)  would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?)  and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your  2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a  mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments   for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP   for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility   for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the   problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend   your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the   value of the rental during those years as additional income,   and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional   amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture,   but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather   than in the future.


How do I calculate the adjusted real rate of return of an investment (such as mutual fund) after inflation and fees? I have always thought that you do this: (1 + nominal return - fees)/(1 + inflation) - 1, but I have been told that this is the wrong way to do it.   Additionally, what is the difference between real interest rate and inflation-adjusted return?


There is no tax code I know that would grant you such a privilege. And it just isn't practicable. In your examples, you always sold your product and were thus able, in retrospect, to give a value to your work. What if you don't sell your product? What if in one case your worked hour is reimbursed with one price, with the next product at another (i.e. difference in margin)? No, it won't work like that.  And by the way, I think you might have got some definitions upside down. What you want is a salary that your own company pays out to yourself and you can deduct from other profits. But as long as you can't afford to pay yourself a salary, and you don't have access to investors who are willing to front you the money, the time invested is your personal investment and cannot be deducted anywhere - though it might pay off nicely in the long run. That's the risk entrepreneurs take.


"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund).  You later sell it for more than you bought it for.  You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for.  What matters is not the amount of money you ""withdraw"", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay.  For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the ""early"" shares.  The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the ""late"" shares.  Then the stock drops to $150.  Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150.  The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150.  If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes.  If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes.  Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the ""cost basis""), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell.  It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain.  You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling.  (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains.  It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale.  What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise).  Often they will use the ""first in, first out"" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method.  Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes.  They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain.  This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications.  As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this.  The answer is ""it depends"".  It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for.  Betterment is more or less saying ""Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized."" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult.  Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details."


Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values


"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method:  Discounted Cash Flows Calculator.  Description: This calculator finds the fair value   of a stock investment the   theoretically correct way, as the   present value of future earnings. You   can find company earnings via the box   below.   [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article:  Investment Valuation: A Little Theory.  Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders   for the same reason that a bond is   valuable to bondholders: both are   expected to generate cash for years   into the future. Company profits are   more volatile than bond coupons, but   as an investor your task is the same   in both cases: make a reasonable   prediction about future earnings, and   then ""discount"" them by calculating   how much they are worth today. (And   then you don't buy unless you can get   a purchase price that's less than the   sum of these present values, to make   sure ownership will be worth the   headache.)   [...]"


A few years ago, I had the rare opportunity to take advantage of a credit card offer. Specifically, a 10% cash back deal on purchases at drug stores or supermarkets. The offer was limited to 90 days, so during that time, I bought 100 cash gift cards at my local CVS.  Over the next year to use them all, when they dropped to a balance under $5 or so, I signed in to my cable TV account and charged the remaining balance there. No bothering a supermarket clerk, or store owner.


The Net Present Value calculation would need to include 1) payments on the debt of $50 million (negative future cashflows) 2) returns from the project (positive future cashflows)  If both of those things are taken into account and the NPV is positive then the project could be accepted.


There is a process called a backdoor IRA.   You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible.  You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA.  You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional).   If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right.  That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy.  Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover.   I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute.  This does.  You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA.   This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA.  This avoids double taxation.  Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out).  You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw.  You initially have $1000 before taxes.   With a regular investment:   You now have $2867.74.   With a pre-tax IRA.   You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA).   You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax.  Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax.   This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future.  Or if your tax bracket changes.  If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor.   If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead.  It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.


1.8% interest isn't bad, but unless you're a higher rate taxpayer a Santander 123 account might be better for you than an ISA. See http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/mar/23/cash-isas-pointless-savings-revolution


I think this question is best answered by simply spending 40-60 minutes looking over the tax documents from last year and tracing thru the calculations.   As much as we might like to do so, we can't treat taxes like a black box. Tax law is much more complicated than it should be, but its much easier to understand taxes after you've filed them than before or during... at least you have solid numbers to look at.


What you want is a cashless transaction. It's part of the normal process. My employer gives me 1000 options at $1, I never need to come up with the money, the shares are bought and sold in one set of transactions, and if the stock is worth $10, I see $9000 less tax withholding, hit the account. No need for me to come up with that $1000.


"Is evaluating stocks just a loss of time if the stock is traded very much? Not at all! Making sound investment decisions based on fundamental analysis of companies will help you to do decide whether a given company is right for you and your risk appetite. Investing is not a zero-sum game, and you can achieve a positive long-term (or short-term, depending on what you're after) outcome for yourself without compromising your ability to sleep at night if you take the time to become acquainted with the companies that you are investing in. How can you ensure that your evaluation is more precise than the   market ones which consists of the evaluation of thousands of people   and professionals? For the average individual, the answer is often simply ""you probably cannot"". But you don't have to set the bar that high - what you can do is ensure that your evaluation gives you a better understanding of your investment and allows you to better align it with your investment objectives. You don't have to beat the professionals, you just have to lose less money than you would by paying them to make the decision for you."


The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today.  The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.


"Some investment trusts have ""zero dividend preference shares"" which deliver all their gains as capital gains rather than income, even if the trust was investing in income yielding stocks. They've rather gone out of fashion after a scandal some years ago (~2000).  Good 2014 article on them here includes the quote  ""Because profits from zero dividend preference shares are taxed as   capital gains, they can be used tax efficiently if you are smart about   how you use your annual capital gains tax allowance."""


As revised,  the answer is still that you're asking the wrong question. If your father wants to make money available on your debit card, all he has to do is deposit the money into your checking account. Where he gets that money from -- as an AmEx casH advance, by selling your bicycle for you, or simply out of one of his own bank accounts -- is irrelevant.


Generally, no.  A mortgage is a lien against the property, which allows the bank to exercise certain options, primarily Power of Sale (Force you to sell the property) and outright seizure.   In order to do this, title needs to be clear, which it isn't if you have half title. However, if you have a sales agreement, you can buy your brother's half, and then mortgage the entire property.  This happens all the time.  When you buy a house from someone, you get pre-approved for that house, which, at the time, you have no title to.   Through some black magic lawyering and handwaving, this is all sorted out at closing time.


"$500, this is called ""cash basis"" accounting. A large company might handle it otherwise, counting shipments/billings as revenue. Not you. Yet."


The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later.


This is something that many people misunderstand. Nearly everyone who works in the U.S. is required to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes (sometimes called payroll taxes or FICA).  These are not a savings plan, and the money you pay is not going into an account with your name on it.  This money is used to pay for the benefits of the current retirees/beneficiaries.  When you retire, the benefits you get will be paid for by the workers that are still working and paying that tax. You may be receiving benefits, but you are also still working, so you still have to pay the tax.


If they have borrowed money without paying it back, what makes you think you could get interest paid? The problem that you face first is to make clear to them that a loan is a loan. As long as they can get free money off you, they will keep borrowing.


Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.


If you want to take to task the [$3.7 trillion](https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=value+of+muni+bond+market#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=%243.7+trillion+bonds&oq=%243.7+trillion+bonds&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=serp.3...2959.7140.0.7714.19.19.0.0.0.0.172.2410.1j18.19.0...0.0.TAsEgkE4bAg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=fea88144d3bdc45d&biw=1283&bih=739) bond market number enjoy your long list of sources using it. I guess they're all in the business of exaggeration huh?       [Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board](http://www.msrb.org/Municipal-Bond-Market.aspx)   >The approximately $3.7 trillion municipal bond market brings together bond issuers and investors to finance public infrastructure projects.     So now tell me, was he making up a number to exaggerate his story or was he just using the same number the fucking MSRB uses as his source?      Why don't YOU start providing some proof as to why the number is wrong.  That's typically what someone challenging data is supposed to do.        EDIT:     [Fed Agrees With Citi On $3.7 Trillion Estimate](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-08/u-s-municipal-bond-market-28-larger-than-estimated-federal-reserve-says.html)


"You ask a few different, though not unrelated, questions. Everywhere you turn today, you hear   people talk about how much they need   to save or how important it is to find   a good deal on things ""in this   economy"". They use phrases like ""now   more than ever"" and ""in these   uncertain times"". It seems to be a lot   of doom and gloom. Some of this is marketing spiel.  You may notice that when the economy goes south the number of ads for the cheaper alternatives goes north.  (e.g. hair clippers, discount grocery stores, discount just about anything)  Truth is, we should always be looking for ways to save money on goods and services we purchase.  The question is, what is acceptable to you for your desired lifestyle.  (And, is that desired lifestyle reasonable for your income, age and personal situation.)  Generally speaking, the harder times are the more we find discounted/cheaper alternatives acceptable.   Is there really a good reason that   people should be saving more than   spending right now? How much you are putting away is a personal matter.  I can still remember my dad griping whenever he couldn't save half of his paycheck.  That said, putting away half your paycheck may lead to a rather austere lifestyle.  This, of course, depends on the size of your paycheck and your desired lifestyle.  You could be raking it, living simply and potentially put away more than half your income with relative ease. If you have a stable job, and a decent cash reserve, is it anymore ""dangerous"" to make a large purchase now than it was seven years ago? Who knows?  Honestly, no one.  Predicting the future is a fool's errand.  (If you are interested in reading more on this view point, I suggest The Black Swan.) You mention the correct approach in this question.  Ensure that you have liquid assets (cash or cash equivalents, i.e. money that you can draw on immediately and isn't credit) which covers at least 3-6 months of your necessary expenses (rent/mortgage, bills, car payments, food).  (There is no reason that you couldn't try to increase this to 1 year, especially ""in this economy."") You should also strive to have money available for emergencies that don't necessarily include loss of income.  Of course, make sure you're putting away for retirement, as appropriate for your retirement goals.  After that should come discretionary items, including investing, entertainment, the large purchase you mentioned, etc.   You should never use money that you may need immediately (5-10 years) for investing.  This doesn't necessarily include the large purchase you are contemplating.  For example, if you are considering purchasing a home, the down-payment may be one of the items for which you need money in the ""immediate"" future. Is it really only because of unemployment numbers? This is probably the big one that is the focus of everyone's attention.  That said, the human attention span is limited.  We have a natural need to simplify things.  This is one of the reasons that we tend to focus on a few, hopefully important, things.  However, the unemployment numbers are not that the only thing of concern.  Credit is still pretty hard to come by these days.  The overall economy is still hurting, even if we are technically no longer in a recession.  There are also concerns about U.S. government borrowing, consumer spending, recent trucking numbers, etc.  (It may not be obvious, but trucking is used as a barometer of economic activity.  If there aren't as many trucks carting goods across the country, it probably means that there is less economic activity.)  The headline number these days is unemployment, as most census workers have now been returned to the pool. To answer the overall question, we should always be saving money, in good times or in bad.  Be that by squeezing more value out of our purchases or by putting some money away.  We should always try to reduce our risks, by having an emergency ""cash"" cushion.  We should always be saving for retirement.  Truth be told, it is probably more important to put money away in good times, before the hardships hit."


I don't see the problem with what they proposed. Visa, Mastercard, American Express etc don't run charities, they charge for their services. And you better believe that cost gets passed down to the consumer one way ir another.  Verizon wanted to itemize this charge directly on your bill. Big whoop. I'd prefer a little bit of transparency in where, exactly, my money goes when I pay a bill.


I don't know, ask the various companies I'm forced to do business with why in the hell they want me to stop by their office so I can drop a check off vs just using some means of digital payment.  I would fucking LOVE to ditch paper checks.


Regardless. It’s a guaranteed 5.x%. Reducing student loans also allows you other benefits; i.e. reduces your credit risk allowing you to pull out more credit at a cheaper rate in the future etc. Unless you strongly believe in current bull market continuing.. (there is a high overvaluation from market principles atm and it has been the longest rise in history), you should go for the guaranteed change. Additionally, if your loan is pegged to variable interest rates such as the fed funds rate, be cognizant that the fed will probably continue rising rates for the near future of good times continue, meaning your rates will go up while markets go down. Long story short, would recommend paying down debt unless you’re quite confident in your skills.  Edit: quick note that if you can do both, this is the best option.


In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=P*r^n*(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=500*1.2016^5*(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.


Hopefully this $1000 is just a start, and not the last investment you will ever make. Assuming that, there are a couple of big questions to consider: One: What are you saving for? Are you thinking that this is for retirement 40 or 50 years from now, or something much sooner, like buying a car or a house? You didn't say where you live. In the U.S., if you put money into an IRA or a 401k or some other account that the government classes as a retirement account, you don't pay taxes on the profits from the investment, only on the original principal. If you leave the money invested for a long period of time, the profits can be many times the original investment, so this makes a huge difference.  Like suppose that you pay 15% of your income in state and local taxes.  And suppose you invest your $1000 in something that gives a 7% annual return and leave it there for 40 years. (Of course I'm just making up numbers for an example, but I think these are in a plausible range. And I'm ignoring the difference between regular income tax and capital gains tax, etc etc. It doesn't change the point.) If you put the money in a classic IRA, you pay 0% taxes the year you open the account, so you have your full $1000, figure that compound interest for 40 years, you'll end up with -- crunch crunch crunch the numbers -- $14,974. Then you pay 15% when you take it leaving you with $12,728. (The end result with a Roth IRA is exactly the same. Feel free to crunch those numbers.) But now suppose you invest in a no-retirement account so you have to pay taxes every year. Your original investment is only $850 because you have to pay tax on that, and your effective return is only 5.95% because you have to pay 15% of the 7%. So after 40 years you have -- crunch crunch -- $10,093. Quite a difference. But if you put money in a retirement account and then take it out before you retire, you pay substantial penalties. I think it's 20%. If you plan to take the money out after a year or two,  that would really hurt. Two: How much risk are you willing to take? The reality of investment is that, almost always, the more risk you take, the bigger the potential returns, and vice versa. Investments that are very safe tend to have very low returns. As you're young, if you're saving for retirement, you can probably afford a fairly high amount of risk. If you lose a lot of money this year, odds are you'll get it back over the next few years, or at least be able to put more money into investments to make up for it. If you're 64 and planning to retire next year, you want to take very low-risk investments. In general, investing in government bonds is very safe but has very low returns. Corporate bonds are less safe but offer higher returns. Stocks are a little more. Of course different companies have different levels of risk: new start-ups tend to be very risky, but can give huge returns. Commodities are much higher risk. Buying on margin or selling short are ways to really leverage your money, but you could end up losing more than you invested. Mutual funds are a relatively safe way to invest in stocks and bonds because they spread your risk over many companies. Three: How much effort are you willing to put into managing your investments? How much do you know about the stock market and the commodities market and international finance and so on, and how much are you willing to learn? If your answer is that you know a lot about these things or are willing to dive in and learn a lot, that you can invest in individual stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. If your answer is that you really don't know much about all this, then it makes a lot of sense to just put your money into a mutual fund and let the people who manage the fund do all the work.


Fundamentally, it's no different than normal.  A risky entity must entice investors with higher interest rates than less risky entities.  We're just in such a low interest rate environment that the rate spread now dips below zero and very low risk entities can issue debt with a negative coupon. Though I agree that this makes no sense and the world's gone mad.


Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task.  Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet.  This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form.  It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual.  In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet.  You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability.  (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.)  Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in.  Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).


"If you're really interested in the long-term success of your business, and you can get by in your personal finances without taking anything from the business for the time being, then don't.   There is no ""legal requirement"" to pay yourself a prevailing wage if doing so would put the company out of business.  it is common for a company's principals not to draw wages from the business until it is viable enough to sustain payroll.  I was in that situation when I first began my business, so the notion that somehow I'm violating a law by being fiscally responsible for my own company is nonsense. Be wise with your new business.  You didn't state why you feel the need to take some kind of payment out, but this can be a crucial mistake if it imperils your business or if that money could be better spent on marketing or some other areas which improve revenues. You can always create a salary deferral agreement between yourself and your own company which basically states that the company owes you wages but you are, for the time being, willing to defer accepting them until such time that the company has sufficient revenues to pay you.  That's one solution, but the simplest answer is, if you don't need the money you're thinking of paying yourself, don't do it.  Let that money work for you in the business so that it pays off better in the long run. Good luck!"


10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions.  But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky.  A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though.  To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked.  Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it.


"Cash/CD's for a house downpayment = Good. Resist the urge to invest this money unless you're not planning on the house for at least 5 years. Roth IRA - Good. Amounts contributed are able to be withdrawn without tax penalties, though you would really need to be in a crisis for this to be a good idea. It's your long-term, retirement money. The earlier you start, the better. Use your 401K at work, if it's offered. Contribute to the Roth as much as you can, as well. Whole life (""Cash value"") life insurance: Be careful... Cash-value life insurance (Whole, Universal, Variable Universal) must be watched more closely as you age. Once they reach that ""magical"" point of being self-sustaining, you cannot relax. The annual cost of insurance is taken from the cash value, which your premium payments replenish. If you stop making premium payments, eventually the cost of insurance (which goes up every year) will erode your cash value down to nothing, at which point more premium must be paid to keep the policy in force. This often happens in your old age, when you can least afford the surprise, and costs are highest. Some advisors get messed up in their priorities when they start depending on the 8-10% commissions they are paid on insurance policies. Since premiums for cash-value policies are far higher than for term policies, you might get some insight into your advisor if they ignore your attempts to consider a term policy. Because of the insurance costs' effects on your cash value, these types of policies are some of the most inefficient and expensive ways to invest. You are better off not investing via a life insurance policy. You don't need life insurance unless someone depends on your financial contribution to their life (spouse and children, for example). Some people just like the peace of mind it brings, and some people want a lump sum to leave as a gift to their loved ones (which is an expensive way to leave a gift).  You can have these ""feel-good"" benefits with a term policy for much less money, if you must have them. Unless you expect to become uninsurable at some point in the future, you should consider using term insurance to meet your life insurance needs until it is no longer needed."


Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier.  Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security.  It further complicates the math and analysis you seek.


I've never heard of an employer offering this kind of arrangement before, so my  answer assumes there is no special tax treatment that I'm not aware of. Utilizing the clause is probably equivalent to exercising some of your options, selling the shares back to your employer at FMV, and then exercising more options with the proceeds. In this case if you exercise 7500 shares and sell them back at FMV, your proceeds would be 7500 x $5 = $37,500, with which you could exercise the remaining 12,500 options. The tax implications would be (1) short-term capital gains of 7500 x ($5 - $3) = $15,000 and (2) AMT income of 12,500 x ($5 - $3) = $25,000, assuming you don't sell the shares within the calendar year.


Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example:  If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4).  If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!


"BTW -- you realize I'm the author, right?  And that I've launched not 1, but 2 successful web apps, right?  Just checking.  My whole point is this: ""From the investment aspect, roughly 1 in 10 companies that receive investments do not fail"" -- is that a cause or an effect? Why do so many ventures fail? They are allegedly started by smart, capable people and funded by people with ""experience."""


Yes, it's a simple calculation. (x+0.0625x)=200 or x=200/1.0625 = $188.24 Technically $188.24 plus tax comes to $200.01. I would just eat the extra $0.01.


Open, high, low, close, volume. The hint is that volume on new years day is 0.  DC's comment is actually a better answer than mine - when given any data set, you should really know the meaning of each cell/number.


"Their banking systems basically avoid usury, which is essentially interest, because it is immoral.  So how the lenders make money is by being a ""partner"" and getting a pre-agreed to amount of profit. However, risk of failure is still on the borrower. In the end the numbers come out the same, they just call it something different.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Islamic_banking"


$500 per package, with a package representing 100 stocks, or $5k for the entire market from a single source (NYSE, for example).  IIRC that was the neighborhood when I went looking. I actually only needed one index in great detail - I chose the S&P 500, and found a source for well under $100.


"The IRS rules are actually the same.  26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In   the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or   other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears   that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale   or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has   acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of   gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or   option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities,   then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is ""substantially identical stock or securities."" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs ""substantially identical.""  Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%."


"The language in the starbucks accounts is highly ambiguous. But Starbucks has no treasury shares which helps work out what is going on.  Where it says ""respectively"" it is referring to the years 2014 and 2013 rather than ""issued and outstanding""...even though it doesn't read that way. Not easy to work out. The figures are:  Authorised 1200 2014 Issued 749.5 2014 Outstanding 749.5 2013 Issued 753.2 2013 Outstanding 753.2"


I think the IRS doc you want is http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010601 I believe the answers are:


A questoin that I deal with almost every day.  Like most investments it comes down to.....What is the purpose for this money?  If it is truly a rainy day savings account that you may need in the short term, then fixed income investments like savings accounts, GIC's, Bonds, Bond funds and Fixed Income ETF's are ideal as they are taxed very inefficiently outside of any registered plan (therefore tax free in here).  However if you have a plan in place that has all your short term needs covered elsewhere, I believe this is the place that you should be the most aggressive in your overall portfolio.  If that mining stock goes up by 1000% wouldn't it be nice to put all of that gain in your pocket?


"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of ""index fund investing"" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with."


Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.


Tell your broker.  You can usually opt to have certain positions be FIFO and others LIFO.  Definitely possible with Interactive Brokers.


Square prices are hard to beat for a small operation. I've looked around when I was considering starting up a business, and they're definitely one of the cheapest. Paypal are the second best, but I do not trust Paypal in general. However, looking locally may provide you some more options. If you walk in to one of the local banks, you may be able to get offers for merchant accounts with better rate, depending on your relationships with that bank. You can also check out Costco merchant services, they seem to be quite competitive with the rates, but there may be other costs (they will probably charge more for equipment).


"What you are looking for is a Money Coach or a Personal Finance Coach. From mymoneycoach.com: ""Money Coach: Everyone uses money, but few people fully understand how to use it wisely. To be debt free and enjoy a comfortable lifestyle takes special skills. Money coaches provide solutions for household budgeting, investing, using credit wisely, and saving for retirement. With the principles offered by a money coach, you can live the life you want to live."" Usually money coaches or personal finance coaches will not tell you ""you should put your money here or there"" but instead they will work with you to identify and correct bad money behaviours that affect more than just your investments, and they will not sell you anything. Maybe you could take a look at some coaches in your area, but a lot of them work via the internet too. Good luck!"


You can always reduce the income by the direct expenses required to earn it, and figure out whether it is ultimately a net profit or loss.   The net profit is taxable income.  The loss may be tax deductible if the underlying thing is tax deductible.    For the book, the $50 revenue required a $100 expense, so that's a $50 net loss.  You don't owe any income tax since it's a loss.  You could take the loss as a tax deduction if you have a business trading books, or if buying the book would be tax deductible for some reason.  Note that in the latter case you can only deduct the $50 not the $100.  For the airline ticket, it is to compensate you for the losses you took as a result if the delayed flight. So you tally up the $22 meal you had in the airport waiting for news, the $110 on the motel room you rented or forfeited, any other way you can peg a cash value to any losses you took.  Total them up, again, a net loss is only deductible if the travel is already deductible. Note that if the actual expenses (book, flight) were tax deductible for some reason, the cash-back reduces the amount of your tax deduction, so it has the same effect as the sale/gift being taxable income.


Keep in mind the ex-dividend date is different from the payable date (the day the dividend is paid). That means the market price will already have adjusted lower due to the dividend. Short answer: you get the lower price when reinvesting. So here's Vanguard's policy, it should be similar to most brokers: When reinvesting dividends, Vanguard Brokerage Services combines the   cash distributions from the accounts of all clients who have requested   reinvestment in the same security, and then uses that combined total   to purchase additional shares of the security in the open market.   Vanguard Brokerage will attempt to purchase the reinvestment shares by   entering a market order at the market opening on the payable date. The   new shares are divided proportionately among the clients' accounts, in   whole and fractional shares rounded to three decimal places. If the   total purchase can't be completed in one trade, clients will receive   shares purchased at the weighted average price paid by Vanguard   Brokerage Services.


IRS pub 521 has all the information you need. Expenses reimbursed. If you are reimbursed for your expenses and you   use the cash method of accounting, you can deduct your expenses either   in the year you paid them or in the year you received the   reimbursement. If you use the cash method of accounting, you can   choose to deduct the expenses in the year you are reimbursed even   though you paid the expenses in a different year. See Choosing when to   deduct, next. If you deduct your expenses and you receive the   reimbursement in a later year, you must include the reimbursement in   your income on Form 1040, line 21 This is not unusual. Anybody who moves near the end of the year can have this problem. The 39 week time test also can be an issue that span over 2 tax years. I would take the deduction for the expenses as soon a I could, and then count the income in the later year if they pay me back. IF they do so before April 15th, then I would put them on the same tax form to make things easier.


I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income.  So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.


"I took a second mortgage when I moved house because I had a long-term fixed rate mortgage that would have incurred punitive fees if I had cancelled it. Rather than doing that I took a second mortgage over the same term for the difference. As my second mortgage was with the same lender, they still had ""First Charge"" on the property (This means that in the event of default they have first call on the property to recoup their losses), so the interest rate was not higher (actually it was slightly less than my first mortgage). My case is not that usual, normally a 'second mortgage' is with a separate provider that takes a ""Second Charge"" on the property. The interest rates are normally higher as a result as there is more chance that the lender will not recoup their money in case of a default as the first charge has priority. The second mortgage may still be cheaper than an unsecured loan, as the second charge provides some collateral, this might make it attractive if a sudden expense needs to be covered."


"In your example, no one has exchanged anything yet: > All we have up to this point are promises, but no one has done any work yet.  When something goes wrong, no exchange has taken place so there is no direct economic impact, because no one is in debt. The farmer needs to get his barrel from somewhere else, but he has not lost anything other than time.  However in otherwiseyep's example, the cobbler has exchanged a pair of shoes for the promissory note: >Tell you what: if you can write me a promise to pay twelve Loddars in October, I can give that to the shoe-maker.""  When something goes wrong, there is a direct economic impact, because the farmer is in debt to the hunter, and the hunter is in debt to the cobbler.  I think otherwiseyep explains it best [in his response to another post](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/utf5u/where_has_all_the_money_in_the_world_gone/c4ypy2q)."


What are you missing? Volume. Bank of America is more than willing to refinance a loan from Wells Fargo as long as the loan is still profitable. There are some caveats with that, though. For one, many land have penalties if they are paid off within two or three years. Additionally, the fact that banks are offering to refinance at great rates doesn't mean that you'll be approved, or that you'll get those rates. If you could post some actual numbers, we could help you see if it's a good deal to refi, and explain exactly where the bank expects it's profit.


"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as ""U.S. Source income"" according to the IRS.  Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes.  See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens."


"This can be answered by looking at the fine print for any prospectus for any stock, bond or mutual fund. It says: ""Past performance is not an indicator of future performance."". A mutual fund is a portfolio of common stocks, managed by somebody for a fee. There are many factors that can drive performance of a fund up or down. Here are a few:  I'm sure there are many more market influences that I cannot think of that push fund prices up or down. What the fund did last year is not one of them. If it were, making money in the mutual fund market would be as easy as investing in last year's winners and everyone would be doing it."


"Read the check: it says ""Pay to the order of ..."". It's simply an order from you to your bank to give money to someone. It can be written on anything. Back in the olden days (a hundred years or so ago) it would have simply been a letter to the bank. Those rules haven't changed much with today's automation. What matters is that the order comes from you, which means it must have your signature. If the bank pays a check with a fraudulent signature they're responsible. Granted, banks don't look very carefully at checks any more (I once accidentally swapped two checks when I paid bills, and the phone company simply gave me a $700 credit on my $50-a-month account), but if they screw up it's their problem."


"You sound like you're already doing a lot to improve your situation... paying off the credit cards, paying off the taxes, started your 401k... I'm in a similar situation, credit ruined & savings gone after the divorce.  I know it feels like you're just spinning your wheels, but look at it this way: every monthly payment you make on a debt directly increases your net worth.  Paying those bills regularly is one of the single best things you can do right now. As for how you can improve your situation, only two things really jump out at me: 1) $1,300 in rent, plus $300 in utilities, seems quite high for a single man.  I don't know the housing costs in your area, though.  Depending on where you live, you could cut that in half while still living alone, or get a roommate and save even more.  You might have to accept a ""suboptimal"" living arrangement (like a smaller apartment), but we all have to sacrifice at times. 2) That last $1,000... you really need to budget how it's being spent.  Consider cooking at home more / eating out less, or trading in your car for one with lower insurance premiums.  Or spending less money on the kids.  You say it's for their entertainment, but don't say what that is... are we talking about going to the movies once a month, or rock concerts twice a week? 3) If the kids are on their own for college, it's not the end of the world.  I know you want to provide the best future you can for them... help them get good grades, and it'll do more for them than any amount of money. After all those & any other ways you find to save money, even if you can only put a hundred bucks in a savings account at the end of the month (and I'd be surprised if you couldn't put five), do it.  Put it in, and leave it there, despite the temptation to take it out and spend it."


NL7 is most likely right. With the rise of regulatory burden some financial institutions are refusing to do business for which they are at risk of not being compliant (because of complexity) or where being compliant is to onerous. Would suggest you have a look at  Good luck


"The VIX is a mathematical aggregate of the implied volatilities of the S&P 500 Index components. It itself cannot be traded as there currently is no way to only hold a position on an implied volatility alone.  Implied volatility can only currently be derived from an option relative to its underlying.  Further, the S&P 500 index itself cannot be traded only the attempts to replicate it.  For assets that are not tradable, derivatives can be ""cash settled"" where the value of the underlying is delivered in cash.  Cash settlement can be used for underlyings that in fact due trade but are frequently only elected if the underlying is costly to deliver or there is an incentive to circumvent regulation. Currently, only futures that settle on the value of the VIX at the time of delivery trade; in other words, VIX futures holders must deliver on the value of the VIX in cash upon settlement.  Options in turn trade on those futures and in turn are also cash settled on the value of the underlying future at expiration. The VXX ETF holds one to two month VIX futures that it trades out of before delivery, so while it is impossible to know exactly what is held in the VXX accounts unless if one had information from an insider or the VXX published such details, one can assume that it holds VIX futures contracts no later than two settlements from the preset.  It should be noted that the VXX does not track the VIX over the long run because of the cost to roll the futures and that the futures are more stable than the VIX, so it is a poor substitute for the VIX over time periods longer than one day. ""Underlying"" now implies any abstract from which a financial product derives its value."


"The terms debit and credit come from double-entry book-keeping. In this system, every transaction is applied against two accounts: it debits one and credits the other by equal amounts. (Or more technically, it affects two or more accounts, and the total of the credits equals the total of the debits.) Whether a debit or a credit adds or subtracts from the balance depends on the type of account. The types of accounts were defined so that it is always possible to have these matching debits and credits. Assets, like cash or property that you own, are ""debit accounts"", that is, a debit is an increase in the balance of the account. Liabilities, like money you owe, are ""credit accounts"", that is, a credit is an increase. To get into all the details would require giving a tutorial on double-entry book-keeping, which I think is beyond the scope of a forum post. By a quick Bing search I find this one: http://simplestudies.com/double-entry-accounting-system.html. I haven't gone through it so I can't say if it's a particularly good tutorial. There are plenty of others on the Web and in bookstores. Note that the terminology can be backwards when someone you're doing business with is describing the account, because their viewpoint may be the opposite of yours. For example, to me, my credit card is a liability: I owe the bank money. So when I post a charge, that's a credit, and when I pay it off, that's a debit. But to the bank, my account is an asset: the customer (me) owes them money. So to the bank, a charge is a debit and a payment is a credit."


Oh my God.  Turn. Back. Now.  This is literally a textbook scam.  I know you want to believe this is true. Its not. Even if it was true it would still be a high, high risk investment that would then be compounded by the fact that you would be doing it with 100% debt.


"There is no ""reason why this cannot be done"", but you can tell your friend that these actions are officially shady in the eyes of the US government. Any bank transactions with a value of $10,000 or more are automatically reported to the government as a way to prevent money laundering, tax evasion, and other criminal shenanigans. ""Structuring"" bank deposits to avoid this monetary limit is a crime in and of itself.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_transaction_report"


If one is looking at this from the perspective of a store where debits could be how money comes into the store's account and credit is what has to be paid out to customers, then the employee salaries would also be something going out of the account for the store.


i think keensian is right.  krudeman is wrong.   why was it anybody could get a loan from a bank to buy a house then during the bubble boom?  u telling me there were that much savings and reserve in the system?  m2 credit lead m1.  banks can create money out of nothing by writing loans.


Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%).  Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher.  Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high.  We're currently at a three-year low.   Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up.  Eventually.  Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall.  It hasn't happened yet though.  In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008).  The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.


This is dangerous as it is a typical a scam.  Trudy convinces Bob to help her avoid an ATM free or some other pretense.  She writes Bob a check for $100, but is willing to take only $80 to return the favor.  Bob agrees. Bob deposits the check, gives Trudy the $80 and then later finds out the check is bad.   In most cases Bob will not be able to find or contact Trudy.   However, in some rare cases if Trudy feels Bob is very gullible, she will do the same thing again and again as long as Bob allows.  Sometimes the amounts will increase to surprisingly high levels.


Probably means cutting the travel short. A small business owner employing specialist staff needs to identify and plan for this risk.   The plan might be to personally cover for the staff until a replacement is found.   Ideally in this situation the business will be able to support the salary of two staff in the role, even if one is part time or an apprentice/trainee. This is the approach our business takes with key staff.


"These services and other employee perks are referred to as fringe benefits. An employee ""fringe benefit"" is a form of pay other than money for the   performance of services by employees. Any fringe benefit provided to   an employee is taxable income for that person unless the tax law   specifically excludes it from taxation. One example of taxable fringe benefit is award/prize money (to prevent someone from ""winning"" most of their salary tax-free.) Cash awards are taxable unless given to charity.   Non-cash awards are taxable unless nominal in value or given to   charity. A less intuitive example is clothing. Clothing given to employees that is suitable for street wear   is a taxable fringe benefit. Your example possibly fits under de minims (low-cost) fringe benefits such as low-value birthday or holiday    gifts, event tickets, traditional awards (such as a retirement gift),   other special occasion gifts, and coffee and soft drinks working condition fringe benefits--that is, property and services   provided to an employee so that the employee can perform his or her   job. Note that ""cafeteria plans"" in the source don't refer to cafeteria but allow employee choice between benefit options available."


I did the reverse several years ago, moving from NH to MA. You will need to file Form 1-NR/PY for 2017, reporting MA income as a part-year residence. I assume you will need to report the April capital gain on your MA tax return, as you incurred the gain while a MA resident. (I am not a lawyer or tax professional, so I don't want to state anything about this as a fact, but I would be very surprised if moving after you incurred the gain would have any affect on where you report it.)


"A 'indexed guaranteed income certificate' (Market Growth GIC) fits the criteria defined in the OP. The ""guaranteed"" part of the name means that, if the market falls, your capital is guaranteed (they cover the loss and return all your capital to you); and the ""index linked"" or ""market growth"" means that instead of the ROI being fixed/determined when you buy the GIC, the ROI depends on (is linked to) the market growth, e.g. an index (so you get a fraction of profit, which you share with the fund manager). The upside is that you can't 'lose' (lose capital). The fund manager doesn't just share the losses with you, they take/cover all the losses. The downside is that you only make a fraction of whatever profit you might make by investing directly in the market (e.g. in an index fund). Another caveat is that you buy a GIC over some fixed term, e.g. you have to give them you money for a year or more, two years."


"If you want a Do-It-Yourself solution, look to a Vanguard account with their total market index funds.   There's a lot of research that's been done recently in the financial independence community.  Basically, there's not many money managers who can outperform the market index (either S&P 500 or a total market index).  Actually, no mutual funds have been identified that outperform the market, after fees, consistently.  So there's not much sense in paying someone to earn you less than a low fee index fund could do.  And some of the numbers show that you can actually lose value on your 401k due to high fees. That's where Vanguard comes in.  They offer some of the lowest fees (if not the lowest) and a selection of index funds that will let you balance your portfolio the way you want.  Whether you want to go 100% total stock market index fund or a balance between total stock market index fund and total bond index fund, or a ""lazy 3 fund portfolio"", Vanguard gives you the tools to do it yourself.  Rebalancing would require about an hour every quarter. (Or time span you declare yourself). jlcollinsnh A Simple Path to Wealth is my favorite blog about financial independence.  Also, Warren Buffet recommended that the trustees for his wife's inheritance when he passes invest her trust in one investment.  Vanguard's S&P500 index fund.  The same fund he chose in a 10 year $1M bet vs. hedge fund managers.  (proceeds go to charity).  That was about 9 years ago.  So far, Buffet's S&P500 is beating the hedge funds.  Investopedia Article"


If you need the money in the short-term, you want to invest in something fairly safe.  These include saving accounts, CDs, and money market funds from someplace like Vanguard.  The last two might give you a slightly better return than the local branch of a national bank.


We struck a deal. I sold an asset to some body on june 1 . However he says, he would pay me any time on or before august 1st . This puts me in a dilemma.  What if price goes down by august 1st and i would have to accept lower payment from him.? If price goes up till august 1st, then obviously i make money since ,even though item is sold,price is yet to be fixed between parties. However i know anytime on or before august 1st, i would get paid the price quoted on that particular day. This price could be high in my favor, or low against me. And, this uncertainty is causing me sleepless nights. i went to futures market exchange. My item (sugar,gold,wheat,shares etc..anything). i short sell a futures which just happens to be equivalent to the quantity of my amount i sold to the acquirer of my item. I shorted at $ 100 , with expiry on august 1st. Now fast orward and august 1st comes. price is $ 120 quoted . lets Get paid from the guy who was supposed to pay on or before august 1st. He  pays 120 $. his bad luck, he should have paid us 100 $ on june 1st instead of waiting for august 1st . His judgement of price movement faulted. WE earned 20 $ extra than we expected to earn on june 1st (100$) . However the futures short of 100$ is now 120$ and you must exit your position by purchasing it at back. sell at 100$ and buy at 120$ = loss of 20$ . Thus 20 $ gained from selling item is forwarded to exchange . Thus we had hedged our position on june 1st and exit the hedge by august 1st. i hope this helps


Let me offer an anecdote to this -  I started helping a woman, widowed, retired, who had been paying $500/yr to get her taxes done. As I mentioned in my comment here, she got a checklist each year and provided the info requested. From where I sat, it seemed a clerk entered the info into tax software.  As part of the transition to me helping her, I asked the prior guy (very nice guy, really) for a quick consult. She took the standard deduction, but also showed a nice annual donation. Didn't take advantage of the QCD, donate directly from an IRA (she was over 70-1/2) to save on the tax of this sum. That could have saved her $500.  She was in the 15% bracket, with some room left for a Roth conversion. Converting just enough to 'fill' that bracket each year seemed a decent strategy as it would avoid the 25% rate as her RMDs rose each year and would push her to 25%. To both items the guy suggested that this was not his area, he was not a financial planner. Yes, I understand different expertise. With how simple her return was, I didn't understand the value he added.  If you go with a professional, be sure you have an understanding of what he will and won't do for you.


For the period 1950 to 2009, if you adjust the S&P 500 for inflation and account for dividends, the average annual return comes out to exactly 7.0%. Source. Currently inflation is around 2%.  So your 2% APY is a 0% real return where the stock market return is 7%.  I.e. on average, stocks have a return that is higher by 7.   If you mix in bonds, 70% stocks to 30% bonds, your real returns will drop to around 5.5%, but you are safer in individual years (bonds often have good years when stocks have bad years).   We're making a bit of a false dichotomy here.  We're talking about returns on stocks in retirement accounts versus returns on CDs in regular accounts.  You can buy stocks in regular accounts and it is legally possible to have a CD in a retirement account.  So you can get bankruptcy protection and tax advantages with a CD.


"You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund.  But then you asked about setting  stock limits.   I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or   sell a stock at the current market   price. A limit order is an order to buy or   sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order.  A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line.  If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price).    If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares,  you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares.  Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified).  This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price).  If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order.  You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker ""I will only buy this stock at this price or better.""  p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste.  It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market."


"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a ""good faith"" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur.  This margin is normally called initial margin.  It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account.  Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading.  When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation.   In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position.  The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position.  In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200.   The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example).  Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day.  If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000).  If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss.  So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions.  If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions."


In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.


"Seems like you could shoehorn this into an investment account. You make purchases similar to what you would make in a money market account ($1 per share) via your premium payments. You see appreciation in those shares. You incur expenses on your ""purchases"" via cost of insurance and possibly monthly payment fees."


Yes, and there are several ways, the safest is a high-yield savings account which will return about 1% yearly, so $35 per month. That's not extremely much, but better than nothing (you probably get almost zero interest on a regular checking account).


"Been a long while since I've read it but if I remember correctly with quotational loss Graham refers to an unjustified decline in stock price because of Mr. Market's fear and loathing where the business prospects of the company are actually still sound.  This is opposed to ""actual"" loss of capital which he would consider to be a company going bankrupt or just more generally turning out to have way worse business prospects than expected with the justified decline in stock price that entails."


"Yes, but the rates at which they're borrowing make all the difference.  Japan's central bank is borrowing at about 2 percent on a 30 year bond, and Greece is borrowing at 18 percent. Japan would thus be paying 4.6% of GDP on debt service for government borrowing, while Greece would thus be paying 27% (assuming that all current bonds could be converted to current rates).   [Japan](http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/japan/), [Greece](http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html).   Further, as many other commenters have noted, Japan retains the ability to print money and thus inflate their debt away, while Greece relies on the European Central Bank, which would not hyperinflate the entire Eurozone to help out Greece's government.  As a comparison, the US is currently paying 1.3% of its GDP on government debt service.   (My calculations are amateur. Please correct me if I'm wrong.)  As [Dean Baker notes](http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/the-devasting-interest-burden-of-the-debt):  ""It is important to remember that most of the people in Washington debates on economic policy do not know much economics. They tend not to be very good at arithmetic either. That is why they were blindsided by the collapse of the $8 trillion housing bubble that wrecked the economy.  As we get endless pontification about the crushing debt burden it is worth touching base with reality on occasion. In that spirit, CEPR brings you the latest data and projections on the ratio of the federal government's interest payments to GDP, courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  [T]he interest to GDP ratio is currently at a crushing 1.3 percent, near the post World War II low. However this figure overstates the burden somewhat. Last year the Federal Reserve Board refunded almost $80 billion to the Treasury. This was interest earned on government bonds and other assets it now holds. That leaves a net interest burden of 0.8 percent of GDP, by far the lowest of the post World War II era.""  **TL;DR**: what matters is not total size of debt alone, but also borrowing costs and ability to inflate the debt away. Japan is paying very little on its large debt; Greece is paying a lot.   **TL;DR TL;DR**: I'd like to borrow a few trillion dollars at 2%, too."


"If you sign the check ""For Deposit Only"", the bank will put it in your account. You may need to set up a ""payable name"" on the account matching your DBA alias. However, having counted offerings for a church on several occasions, I know that banks simply have no choice but to be lax about the ""Pay to the Order Of"" line on checks. Say the church's ""legal name"" for which the operating funds account was opened is ""Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church of Red Bluff"". You'll get offering checks made out to ""Saint Barnabas"", ""Saint B's"", ""Episcopal Church of Red Bluff"", ""Red Bluff Episcopal"", ""Youth Group Fund"", ""Pastor Frank"", etc. The bank will take em all; just gotta stamp em with the endorsement for the church. Sometimes the money will be ""earmarked"" based on the payable line; any attempt to pay the pastor directly will go into his ""discretionary fund"", and anything payable to a specific subgroup of the church will go into their asset account line, but really all the cash goes directly to the same bank account anyway. For-profit operations are similar; an apartment complex may get checks payable to the apartment name, the management company name, even the landlord. I expect that your freelance work will be no different."


Generally, prize money is miscellaneous income, reported on line 21 of your 1040 and not subject to self employment tax. See IRS publication 525 for more details; under 'Prizes and Awards', they give an example of winning a photography contest. Now, there are a couple of exceptions. If your main occupation is participating in contests such as this - or you do it sufficiently that it could be considered such - then it may be considered something you should pay self employment taxes on. If it's your first one - you're fine. Also, it would have to be something that doesn't look like work for me to be confident it's self employment income. I'm not sure that winning the Netflix prize for improving on their algorithm by 10% wouldn't run the risk of being considered sort of employment. I'm not a tax advisor, but in that case I would hire one to be sure.  I could imagine companies abusing 'prizes' otherwise to get out of paying employment taxes...


At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low.  For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question.  Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up.  So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement.  A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap.  Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it.  They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses.  That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require.  That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly.  If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.


That's technically true but there will still be a max level they can hit before the signal clips. Part of why commercials are so jarring is because they are heavily compressed (eliminating those peaks and  valleys and basically making the entire commercial blare at just below the max volume) vs a movie or tv show that would use more dynamic range of volume levels.


"When you invest in a property, you pay money to purchase the property. You didn't have to spend the money on the property though - you could have invested it in the stock market instead, and expected to make a 4% annualized real rate of return or thereabouts. So if you want to know whether something's a ""good investment"", ask whether your annual net income will be more or less than 4% of the money you put into it, and whether it is more or less risky than the stock market, and try to judge accordingly. Predicting the net income, though, is a can of worms, doubly so when some of your expenses aren't dollar-denominated (e.g. the time you spend dealing with the property personally) and others need to be amortized over an unpredictable period of time (how long will that furnace repair really last?). Moreover your annualized capital gain and rental income is also unpredictable; rent increases in a given area cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined mathematical formula. Ultimately it is impossible to predict in the general case - if it were possible we probably would have skipped that last housing bubble, so no single simple formula exists."


"Hence why keeping the capital gains tax rate down is not such a bad idea. Sure, it may benefit ""rich"" people, but it will also allow RESPONSIBLE low and middle class income families to reinvest their capital gains and accumulate more wealth."


I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement.  Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks.


Pretty much. There is an executive trying decide between a trader who has made the firm millions in the past few years and a quant who costs him a 6 figure salary but doesn't pull in any revenue. Then on top of it the quant is talking mathematics which the executive doesn't even know in the first place. Who is executive going to side with?


Unless you suffer from the illusion that you can time the market, it honestly doesn't matter much; the difference is lost in the noise. That may be true even if you do suffer from that illusion.  Also, as discussed here previously, the drop in a stock's price right after the dividend has been paid just reflects the fact that you aren't about to get an immediate refund in the form of a dividend. If you look at the real cost per share, it's meaningless and can/should be ignored. Buying after the dividend is paid may save you a tiny fraction of a cent of short-term income tax, but that's meaningless in real terms.


I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math.  What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY.  A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal.


Based on the additional comment you gave, I would recommend that you keep the capital from the businesses separate as much as possible.  It sounds like you won't get into any trouble legally if you make 'loans' or transfers of capital from one business into the other. But I would suggest that you keep detailed records of any transfers that you do make.  The reason why is that in any business, it is important to know the economics of how your business makes money. If you find yourself making transfers repeatedly, then your business model may be bad. Even if your transfers are only to deal with the cost of poor customers, it could still mean that your business model needs to be adjusted.  But if it's a question of the timing of cash flows, then there's really nothing wrong with taking some of the money from your successful pants operation and building up more working capital in your stationery shop.


Are these estimates? I didn't see a link or source in there to actual financial statements. As a private company I'm not sure that information is public. A quick Google search didn't bring anything to light.  Regardless, I'd be much more interested in seeing Spotify's cash flow statement. For startup companies that can be much more indicative of health.


In terms of operations, banks are indifferent to inflation. Short rates except right before a recession or near-recession are always lower than long rates, regardless of inflation level, assuming no quotas or price controls. Banks produce credit by borrowing short to lend long, so as long as short rates are lower than long rates, they can be expected to produce loans, again assuming no quotas or price controls. In short, from the banks' perspective, inflation does not affect their desire to produce credit.


Assuming here that you're talking about deducting your tuition as a below the line deduction as a business expense or similar, then it depends. Per 1.162-5, if the education: Then it qualifies as a legitimate business expense and is deductible.  If not - if you're going to school for a different career, such as someone employed as a waiter but going to school to get a degree in nursing, or someone employed as a teacher getting a law degree - then it's not; you'd have to qualify under one of the other (simpler, but lesser) credits. Read more on this topic at Tax topic 513. Note that the other most commonly applicable deduction - the above the line Tuition and Fees deduction - expired in 2016 and is not applicable (yet?) in 2017, and further would not require most of what you describe as it only counts tuition and fees paid directly to the institution and required as a condition of attendance, so books, parking, etc. don't count.


> Which is why you'll essentially never find anybody running less than $10m, and usually more than that.  1) You have to get started somewhere.  2) If you're already trading your own account, why not spend 5k or so to start a hedge fund and earn additional money managing other people's money too?  3) It seems to me you are only looking at normal hedge funds and not considering the thousands of micro sized hedge funds which largely go un-reported on.  Even those do indeed typically start with 500k-5 mil, but to suggest that I can't start one with 100-150k is simply nonsense.  I did, and anyone else can too if they go through the proper paperwork (management LLC, fund LP, memorandum of offering written up, etc), and get the proper NASD licensing.  BTW, now that I think about it more, I think mine was 150k, not 100k.  Never-the-less, it was certainly one of the smallest ever.


"As cryptocurrencies are rather new compared to most assets, there hasn't been a lot of specific guidance for a lot of situation, but in 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. I'm not aware of further guidance that has been published beyond that, though it wouldn't surprise me if treatments changed over time. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general treatment: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. Your specific questions (about what constitutes a ""business"", and when you're considered to be ""selling"" the cryptoproperty) are likely to be considered on a case by case basis by the IRS. As the amounts involved here are so small (relatively speaking), my recommendation would be to read through what the IRS has published carefully, make reasonable assumptions about what scenarios that are described are closest to what you're doing, and document doing so clearly as part of your tax preparations. And when in doubt, erring on the side of whichever option incurs more tax is unlikely to be objected to by them. Of course, I'm not a lawyer or tax advisor, I'm a stranger on the Internet, so for ""real"" advice you should contact somebody qualified. I doubt you'd be faulted too much for not doing so given the amounts involved. You could also attempt contacting a local IRS office or calling them with your specific questions, and they may be able to provide more specific guidance tailored to you, though doing so may not save you from an auditor deciding something differently if they were to examine your return later. There are also phone numbers to contact specific people listed at the end of Notice 2014-21; you could try calling them as well."


"There are no risk-free high-liquidity instruments that pay a significant amount of interest.  There are some money-market accounts around that pay 1%-2%, but they often have minimum balance or transaction limits.   Even if you could get 3%, on a $4K balance that would be $120 per year, or $10 per month.  You can do much better than that by just going to $tarbucks two less times per month (or whatever you can cut from your expenses) and putting that into the savings account. Or work a few extra hours and increase your income. I appreciate the desire to ""maximize"" the return on your money, but in reality increasing income and reducing expenses have a much greater impact until you build up significant savings and are able to absorb more risk.  Emergency funds should be highly liquid and risk-free, so traditional investments aren't appropriate vehicles for them."


Self employment is. Freelancing is the same thing as owning a shop on mainstreet.  Many small businesses are operated by a single person.  It occurs to me now there are probably people who differentiate between business ownership and freelancing because they want to diminish the achievements of freelancers. Those people are wrong and should be looked out for.  What are your motives? /u/spitinthecola


A routing number and account number are on the bottom of every check. If anybody who ever handled your checks or even saw your checks could just withdraw as much money as they wanted, the whole banking system would need to be reworked. In short, just having that info is not enough. Not legally.


My grandmother passed away earlier this year. When I got my car 3 years ago, I did not have good enough credit to do it on my own or have her as a co-signer. We had arranged so that my grandmother was buying the car and I was co-signing.  A similar situation was happening and I went to my bank and took out a re-finance loan prior to her passing. I explained to them that my grandmother was sick and on her death bed. They never once requested a power of attorney or required her signature. I am now the sole owner of the vehicle.


we're grateful that you took the time to read the newest post made by my friend matt perry nguyen in buildingbusinesscreditblog.com. we hope you can also post your comments and suggestions on this piece. in behalf of my friend and fellow poster a million thanks!


"There are two ways you can ""cash in."" 1) Buy enough additional shares to bring your share total to 100, then exercise the put. 2) Sell the put in the open market for a profit."


"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating ""after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece"" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought"


You are both right and wrong.   A few key things   - I'm not charging the government body I work for, it's a free implementation  - I ensured I do all the work on my own time, not company time. I live somewhere where most government employees work multiple jobs, so this isn't uncommon. In fact, my government body actually does often hire contractors who are also employed.   - I don't live in the US, things are somewhat less different where I am.  - It is certainly not illegal, and I would even argue that it is even somewhat ethical. My work saved my employer (the tax payer) a significant amount of money, which is a net positive. The service is of high quality, and I did not break any employment agreements or laws in the process.   - I hired a lawyer to double check everything.