"On reflection there are financial products that do what you want, whole-life insurance policies that guarantee an annual dividend calculation on some index with a ceiling and floor.  So you will have a return within a defined minimum and maximum range.   There are a lot of opinions on the internet on this.  This Consumer Reports article is balanced These have a reputation for being bad for the consumer compared to buying term life and investing in a mutual fund separately, but if you want the guarantee (or are a ""moral hazard"" for a life insurance policy, closer to death than you appear on paper) it may be a product for you.   If you're very wealthy, there is an estate tax exploit in insurance death benefits that can make this an exceptional shield on assets for your heirs, with the market return just the gravy."


By in combination with fiat I mean we will continue to use sterling or dollars in society along with Bitcoin perhaps for online purchases exclusively, as an example. Many people here advocate for a society that would only use cryptocurrency as money.   Cryptocurrency, specifically Bitcoin, is unlike fiat currency firstly because it is not backed by a government, it's in the ether so to speak, it proves its own value intrinsically. No central authority decides on the actions to take in regard to the currency.   Other characteristics that separate Bitcoin from fiat are its inability to be inflated, it's finite nature, there will only ever be x amount of bitcoins - it is deflationary by nature of the algorithm. Central authorities can devalue their fiat currency through financial instruments like inflation and controlling the production (quantitative easing). This isn't true of all crypto currencies like dogecoin and maybe ETH


This is great! I'm not a CPA, but work in finance. As such, my course/professional work is focused more on the economic and profitability aspects of transfer pricing. As you might imagine, it tended to analyze corporate strategy decisions under various cost allocation models, which you thoroughly discuss.  I would agree with the statement that it is based on the matching principle but would like to add that transfer pricing is interesting as it falls under several fields: accounting, finance, and economics. Fundamentally it is based on the matching principal, but it's real world applications are based on all three (it's often used to determine divisional and even individual sales peoples profitability; as is the case with bank related funds transfer pricing on stuff like time deposits). In this case, the correct accounting principal allows you to, when done properly, better understand the economics, strategy, and operations of an organization.   In effect, when done correctly, it provides transparency for strategic decision making to executives. As I said, since my coursework tended to focus more on that aspect, I definitely have a natural tendency towards it.  This is an amazing explanation (esp. about interest on M&A bridge loans, I get that) of the more detailed stuff! Truthfully, I'm not as familiar with it and was just trying to show more of the conceptual than nitty-gritty.   Thanks for the reply!


The 2 and 20 rule is a premium arrangement that hedge funds offer and venture capital funds offer, and they also offer different variations of it. The 2 is the management fee as percent of assets under management, the 20 is the profit cut, which they only get if they are profitable. There are 0/20, 1/15, and many variations. You're assuming that nobody offers this arrangement because it isn't offered to you, but that's because nobody offers it to people that aren't wealthy enough to legally qualify for their fund. When you park 6 or 7 figure amounts in bank accounts, they'll send your information out to the funds that operate the way you wish they operated.


is it possible to file that single form aside from the rest of my return? Turbotax will generate all the forms necessary to file your return. I recommend you  access these forms and file them manually. According to the IRS in order to report capital gains and losses you need to fill out Form 8949 and summarize them on Form 1040 D. Add these two forms to the stack that turbotax generates. Add the total capital gains to line 13 of the Form 1040 which turbotax generated, and adjust the totals on the form accordingly.


"I would say people are generally talking about the prime lending rate. I have heard the prime lending rate defined as ""The rate that banks charge each other when they borrow money overnight."" But it often defined as the rate at which banks lend their most creditworthy customers. That definition comes with the caveat that it is not always held to strictly. Either definition has the same idea: it's the lowest rate at which anyone could currently borrow money. The rate for many types of lending is based upon the prime rate. A variable rate loan might have an interest rate of (Prime + x). The prime rate is in turn based upon the Federal Funds Rate, which is the rate that the Fed sets manually. When the news breaks that ""the Fed is raising interest rates by a quarter of a point""  (or similar) it is the Federal Funds Rate that they control. Lending institutions then ""fall in line"" and adjust the rates at which they lend money. So to summarize: When people refer to ""high"" or ""low"" or ""rising"" interest rates they are conceptually referring to the prime lending rate. When people talk about the Fed raising/lowering interest rates (In the U.S.) they are referring specifically to the Federal Funds Rate (which ultimately sets other lending rates)."


You should think of Required Rate of Return in your own terms.   Say a friend tells you that he will give you $ to stand in line and get him tickets to your schools football game. The line is on average two hours long and you DIDN'T plan on going to the game, so you are going out of your way for him. What is the minimum dollar value that you would charge him to stand in line for him? What price would make standing in line worth it?


Square is a company. They need to detail as part of their corporate taxes all of their expenses. The money they collected for you, and sent to you, is not income for themselves. Their tax form included the amount of money they sent you, along with either your Social Security Number of corporate tax id. The IRS computers match the information regarding expenses to the information regarding income. In this case the expense listed by Square didn't match-up with a line of your tax forms for that year. The IRS now sees that as unreported income. If you didn't tell them about other expenses you had, they can only assume your expenses were zero.  Congratulations you have a business. Unfortunately the Federal, state and local governments now will want to know about your business. You may have to fill out multiple years worth of tax forms and other required forms. Yes, you should getting professional accounting and tax help.


"the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest.  particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.).  and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are ""rich"" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows.  while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client."


The way it actually works is that low-but-steady inflation (ie: printing of new dollars without any debt behind them) keeps the debts serviceable.  In real life, unfortunately, too little of the money supply is printed rather than lent into existence.


True.  My wife is in banking, and typically it is the poorest of the poor that live in the negative and pay all the overdraft fees.  She has one guy that earns just enough to bring him back positive, and then he pulls out all his overdraft allowance and starts the cycle all over again.


"I expect that the loan documents show both you and your ex-partner as ""jointly and severally liable"" for the debt, and thus you're both responsible for it.  It doesn't really matter what other paperwork you have that says otherwise or what other promises might have been made.  Certainly, the other agreements give you legal ground to go after your ex-partner for the money, but they give you no leverage with the bank. If you end up paying this debt off to save your credit, you need to make sure that the account is closed.  Make sure you have paperwork showing it as closed, and showing that it was paid in full, and then keep that paperwork forever. Re #1: I think it will eventually show up on your credit report.  You could ask the bank for proof that you owe the money, if you like, but that will probably just delay the inevitable. Re #2: His bankruptcy filing really has no bearing on you and your obligation to repay the loan.  If he didn't list this debt, then he is still liable for it as well (and you can still go after him under your other agreements).  But either way, you're still on the debt."


Read the game of numbers by nick Murray.  You have to find money to call yourself a money manager and most of the job is sales. You won't stay in business if you're bad at managing it, but step #1 is finding something to manage.  Hani


The negative effects of multiple hard inquiries in a short span of time don't stack, they're treated as a single inquiry (and inquiries aren't *that* bad anyway, the only ding you by a few points).  The bigger problem here is the **other** reason your bank gave you - Too many overdrawn accounts.  If you don't believe you currently have any overdrawn accounts, you need to pull your credit report *now* and make sure it's accurate.  Maybe there's a mistake on your credit, maybe you're a victim of identity theft.  That said, 1.5 years isn't really very long in credit terms for managing to keep your record clean, so maybe your credit just needs a few more years to heal.  But *definitely* pull your credit report to rule out the worst possibilities.


"One way to value companies is to use a Dividend discount model. In substance, it consists in estimating future dividends and calculating their present value. So it is a methodology which considers that an equity is similar to a bond and estimates its current value based on future cash flows. A company may not be paying dividends now, but because its future earnings prospects are good may pay some in the future. In that case the DDM model will give a non-zero value to that stock. If on the other hand you think a company won't ever make any profits and therefore never pay any dividends, then it's probably worth 0! Take Microsoft as an example - it currently pays ~3% dividend per annum. The stock has been listed since 1986 and yet it did not pay any dividends until 2003. But the stock has been rising regularly since the beginning because people had ""priced in"" the fact that there was a high chance that the company would become very profitable - which proved true in the long term (+60,000% including dividends since the IPO!)."


"Hah!  In so far as the financial sector isn't making money off the government, then I would say it is truly ""financed through the financial sector"".  The financial sector doesn't operate at a loss, which is what you are suggesting here.  They aren't paying the government to have roads and power and plumbing and water, etc.    The financial sector is paying because they make more money back.  You want to admit who is paying to have roads and water and power and plumbing, etc?  Every person who gets a paycheck or owns a house is.  Not big money.  Ordinary people.  Taxes and Tariffs, and printing money pays for all of this.  We, the tax payer, aren't seeing a financial reimbursement for our expenses on these projects.  But Big Money is.  Our reimbursement is:  Roads, Power, plumbing, Police, Fire Departments.  Which means we are the consumers buying products.  Big Money is the middle man making bucks off the system.  Perhaps Big Money is necessary, but now it is out of control, and needs to be held accountable."


Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.


This is a really easy problem. If you're genuinely having trouble, maybe don't be a finance major? All you need to do is know the formulas for the ratios and plug in the variables. Simple and clean.  However, if you're lazy and trying to get free answers off of reddit, then you could have saved the time you took to post this question and actually do the problem. You probably would have gotten the answer all by yourself without much help.


"TLDR:  Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade.  I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade.  Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives.  One option would be Scottrade.  While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service.  Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now?  Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments.  Some professional advice is probably in order.  For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made.  You don't have that luxury.  I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option).  With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over.  I think they offer some professional management as well.  Schwab will offer the latter but not the former.  However you can call them up and talk on the phone.  Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money.  Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones.  Something like:  ""Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.""  Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account."


I'm not a finance professional by any means, but my understanding of cashier's checks is that they're more in favour of the person receiving. They're essentially guaranteeing that you have the money in your account to provide payment to the recipient.   The advice I've always received is to treat cashier's checks and money orders as straight up cash, because that's essentially what they are.  Hopefully someone else can come in with a better background, but I figured I'd pitch in.


There's gotta be categories, right? Like boutiques, or gas stations, clothing stores, etc...   Maybe not, I just thought with all the numbers out there, some website somewhere would have something to decipher what kind of store, and numbers in that category.   Thanks for taking the time to answer though.


I have a very hard time believing you pay 60% of gross. Otherwise, I believe you're right in the way this works: Suppose you make $100k and pay 25% of that in taxes. 100,000 * .25 = 25,000 But if you spend $1,000 pretax, then it's as if you were paid $99,000 99,000 * .25 = $24,750 So the difference is $250.  Which is the same as that $1,000 * .25.


It's very, very unlikely that you received a phone call at work with an incorrect birth date from an actual lending company that thinks it loaned you any money.  It's much more likely that you received a phone call at work from a collections agency that would have bought some loan from the aforementioned agency for pennies on the dollar.  They would have been hunting around trying to find someone with your name who was born thirteen years earlier.  It's even more likely that this is some sort of phishing scam.  If you're worried, you can check your credit rating, but it is likely that you can safely ignore the situation.  If they call back, ask for thorough details about the credit card.  If they're a real collections agency and for some reason they won't leave you alone, IIRC the most surefire course of action is to hire a lawyer to send them a cease-and-desist letter.


NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.


If it doesn't seem that important, why bother blacking the name out? For the effort, it might cost you less in your time to have the checks reprinted. There's no way to know what all banks would do with a check that has a name crossed out, but most would ignore it. Most checks are processed automatically. Signatures are not verified, post-dated checks can usually still be deposited. Occasionally you'll have a bank or merchant reject a check, but don't expect that to be the norm.


Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings.  (I have an account there.)  Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.


"Bull means the investor is betting on a rising market. Puts are a type of stock option where the seller of a put option promises to buy 100 shares of stock from the buyer of the put option at a pre-agreed price called the strike price on any day before expiration day.  The buyer of the put option does not have to sell (it is optional, thats why it is called buying an option).  However, the seller of the put is required to make good on their promise to the buyer. The broker can require the seller of the put option to have a deposit, called margin, to help make sure that they can make good on the promise.   Profit... The buyer can profit from the put option if the stock price moves down substantially.   The buyer of the put option does not need to own the stock, he can sell the option to someone else.  If the buyer of the put option also owns the stock, the put option can be thought of like an insurance policy on the value of the stock.  The seller of the put option profits if the stock price stays the same or rises.  Basically, the seller comes out best if they can sell put options that no one ends up using by expiration day. A spread is an investment consisting of buying one option and selling another. Let's put bull and put and spread together with an example from Apple. So, if you believed Apple Inc. AAPL (currently 595.32) was going up or staying the same through JAN you could sell the 600 JAN put and buy the 550 put.  If the price rises beyond 600, your profit would be the difference in price of the puts.  Let's explore this a little deeper (prices from google finance 31 Oct 2012): Worst Case:  AAPL drops below 550.  The bull put spread investor owes (600-550)x100 shares = $5000 in JAN but received $2,035 for taking this risk. EDIT 2016: The ""worst case"" was the outcome in this example, the AAPL stock price on options expiry Jan 18, 2013 was about $500/share. Net profit = $2,035 - $5,000 = -$2965 = LOSS of $2965 Best Case:  AAPL stays above 600 on expiration day in JAN. Net Profit = $2,035 - 0 = $2035 Break Even:  If AAPL drops to 579.65, the value of the 600 JAN AAPL put sold will equal the $2,035 collected and the bull put spread investor will break even. Commissions have been ignored in this example."


"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page.  (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on ""lit"" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other.  Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on ""non-lit"" exchanges.  These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA.  There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF.  They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're ""located at"" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring.  (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further.  (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.)  I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities.  Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point."


The way this works, as I understand it, is that financial advisers come in two kinds. Some are free to recommend you any financial products they think fit, but many are restricted in what they can recommend. Most advisers who work for finance companies are the second kind, and will only offer you products that their company sells. I believe they should tell you up front if they are the second kind. They should certainly tell you that if you ask. So in essence, your Scotiabank advisor is not necessarily making bad decisions for you - but they are restricted in what they will offer, and will not tell you if there is a better product for you that Scotiabank doesn't sell. In most cases, 'management fees' means something you pay to the actual managers of the fund you buy, not to the person who sells you the fund. You can compare the funds you are invested in yourself, both for performance and for the fees charged. Making frequent unnecessary changes of investment is another way that an advisor can milk you for money, but that is not necessarily restricted to bank-employed advisors. if you think that is happening to you, ask question, and change advisors if you are not happy.


At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career.  There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading).  You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.


The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies.  You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country.  If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.


Generally stock trades will require an additional Capital Gains and Losses form included with a 1040, known as Schedule D (summary) and Schedule D-1 (itemized).  That year I believe the maximum declarable Capital loss was $3000--the rest could carry over to future years. The purchase date/year only matters insofar as to rank the lot as short term or long term(a position held 365 days or longer), short term typically but depends on actual asset taxed then at 25%, long term 15%.  The year a position was closed(eg. sold) tells you which year's filing it belongs in. The tiny $16.08 interest earned probably goes into Schedule B, typically a short form. The IRS actually has a hotline 800-829-1040 (Individuals)  for quick questions such as advising which previous-year filing forms they'd expect from you.  Be sure to explain the custodial situation and that it all recently came to your awareness etc. Disclaimer: I am no specialist. You'd need to verify everything I wrote; it was just from personal experience with the IRS and taxes.


Assuming this will be a taxable account (since you want to pull income off of it, although this will lower wealth growth), you could open a brokerage account at some place like Vanguard (free on their ETFs) and look at tax efficient index fund ETFs (such as total stock market or their 500 fund), including  some international (foreign tax credit is nice in taxable) and muni funds for the (tax advantaged) income, although CDs are likely better for the income at this point.


"I have a slightly different take on this, compared to the other answers. In general, I think your emergency fund should always be at least 3K, especially if you own a used car that is out of warranty. Any number of unlucky auto repairs could easily cost over 2K. So, if you have 7K in savings, I would personally buy a car that is 4K or less or finance any amount of the car over 4K (if you can get a relatively low interest rate). Then I would pay down the financed portion of the car as quickly as possible while maintaining at least a 3K emergency fund. That being said, notice I mentioned ""In general"". Your situation may actually be quite different. If you don't have much debt, with your income you might be able to build up a couple of thousand in savings in a single month, and if so the above doesn't really apply. Even if you spent the entire 7K on a car, you'd likely have at least 3K in your emergency fund within 60-90 days. As for what's responsible, there are too many factors to dictate that. If you don't have many other expenses, you could possibly afford a $40K car, and I don't think anyone here could fairly call that ""irresponsible"" if you spent that much, though surely no one would call it ""responsible"" either. Perhaps the best advice is to buy the least expensive car you will be happy with. Many people regret overspending on a vehicle, but few regret underspending (unless they got a lemon that requires lots of repairs). Finally, you could also consider another option. You could get a very cheap car for 1K or less and drive it for a year. By then you may have closer to 20K saved up for a much nicer car than you can afford today."


"Speaking from personal experience: I have had a credit card canceled for exactly this reason. It's happened to me three times, with two different providers (NatWest and Nationwide). After the third instance I stopped bothering to even carry a credit card. It's worth noting that all three were ""free"" cards in the sense that I paid no flat fee or subscription to get the cards. The only way the issuer could make a profit on them was through interest. I was also not a frequent user, carrying the card for convenience more than anything else, although I did make purchases on all three. So it's certainly a possibility. But I live in the UK and I'm guessing most of your other respondents do not. It may be a practice that's more common here than in the US. That might even explain the origin of the rumour."


"Check how long you have to hold the stock after buying it. If you can sell reasonably soon and your company is reasonably stable, you're unlikely to lose and/or be taxed and/or pay enough in fees to lose more than the 30% ""free money"" they're giving you.  Whether you hold it longer than the minimum time depends partly on whether you think you can better invest the money elsewhere, and partly on how you feel about having both your salary and (part of) your investments tied to the company's success? The company would like you to ""double down"" that way, in the theory that it may make you mors motivated... but some investment councelors would advise keeping that a relatively small part of your total investments, basically for the same reasons you are always advised to diversify."


"Two typical responses to articles/surveys making such claims:  **1. People use other forms of asset for emergency savings because interest rates are low - clearly false.**  **2. People use other forms of saving than a saving account therefore such surveys as the X% can't handle a $500 emergency are wrong on their face - this is false the vast majority use a savings account.**  I've chosen a topic that absolutely annoys the shit out of me every time it comes up, how people save their money. Every time this topic comes up about X% of americans can't come up with $Y dollars in an emergency or have less than $Z in savings someone inevitably chimes in with the linked response. I have *never* seen anyone attempt to source their hand waving response beyond their own anecdote, which is usually a thinly veiled brag about how financially savvy they are with their wealth. Perhaps people who have no assets, or crippling debt don't go out of their way to brag about it...  I could link multiple reddit posts making a similar response, which I address with my own stock response about once every 1-2 months. Instead I've decided to expand with data from several other sources. This is the prototypical good/bad research problem. If you're asserting something, but qualify your statement with, ""I""m sure we'd find...if we looked into..."" then you're doing it wrong. A good researcher or journalist doesn't put bullshit like that in their work because it's their job to actually look for sources of data; data which should exist with multiple government and independent groups. So let's get started (all data as recent as I could find, oldest source is for 2010):  * [Most americans don't invest in the stock market](https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2014/pdf/scf14.pdf)  About 48.8% of americans owned publicly traded stock directly or indirectly, with a much smaller percent (13.8%) owning stock directly -  pages 18 and 16 respectively. It's important to note the predominance of indirect ownership which suggests this is mostly retirement accounts. It's entirely possible people are irresponsible with their emergency savings, but I think it safe to say we should not expect people to *dip into their retirement accounts* for relatively minor emergency expenses. The reason is obvious, even if it covers the expense they now have to make up the shortfall for their retirement savings. This is further supported by the same source:  >""The value of assets held within IRAs and DC plans are among the most significant compo-nents of many families’ balance sheets and are a significant determinant of their future retirement security.""  Ibid (page 20, PDF page 20 of 41)  There is also a break down of holdings by asset type on page 16, PDF page 16 of 41.  * [This data is skewed by the top 10% who keep more of their wealth in different asset types.](http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html) For a breakdown between the 1st, 10th, and 90th percentiles see **table 3.**  So far it seems pretty hard to maintain a large percent of americans have their wealth stored outside of savings accounts, mattresses aside.  * [Here's my original reply as to the breakdown of americans assets by type and percent holding.](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB) Note this assumes people *have* assets. [Source for images/data.](https://www.census.gov/people/wealth/data/dtables.html)  Most people use savings accounts, with runner up falling to checking accounts. This will segue into our next topic which is the problem of unbanked/underbanked households.  * [A large number of individuals have no assets; breaking down by asset types assumes people *have* assets in the first place.](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/)  To quote the FDIC:  >*""Estimates from the 2015 survey indicate that 7.0 percent of households in the United States were unbanked in 2015. This proportion represents approximately 9.0 million households. An additional 19.9 percent of U.S. households (24.5 million) were underbanked, meaning that the household had a checking or savings account but also obtained financial products and services outside of the banking system.""*  That's right there are millions of households *so finance savvy* they don't even have banks accounts! Obviously it's because of low interest rates. Also, most people have a checking account as well as savings account, the percent with ""checking and savings"" was 75.8% while those with ""checking only"" were 22.2% (page 25, PDF page 31 of 88). It's possible in some surveys people keep all their money in checking, but given other data sources, and the original claim this fails to hold up. If the concern was interest rates it makes no sense to keep money in checking which seldom pays interest.  This survey also directly addresses the issue of ""emergency savings"":  > *""Overall, 56.3 percent of households saved for unexpected  expenses or emergencies in the past 12 months.""* (page 37, PDF page 43 of 88)  Furthermore:  >*""Figure 7.2 shows that among all households that saved for  unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts  were the most used savings method followed by checking  accounts:* **more than four in five (84.9 percent) kept savings  in one of these accounts.** *About one in ten (10.5 percent)  households that saved maintained savings in the home, or  with family or friends.""*   Emphasis added.  * [Why don't people have wealth in different asset classes? Well they don't save money.](http://cdn.financialsamurai.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/savings-rates-by-wealth-class.png)  This is further supported by the OECD data:  * [Americans ""currency and deposits"" are 13% vs 5.8% for ""securities and other shares"" as % of total financial assets.](https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-financial-assets.htm)  Additionally:  * [Interest earning checking accounts: 44.6% of american households (second image)](https://imgur.com/a/DsLxB)  * [""Among all households that saved for unexpected expenses or emergencies, savings accounts were the most used  savings method followed by checking accounts..."" (page 7, PDF page 13 of 88)](https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/2015/2015report.pdf)  * ~70% saved for an emergency with a savings account vs ~24% who used checking. *Ibid.*  In fairness the FDIC link does state *banked* americans were more likely to hold checking accounts than savings accounts (98% vs ~77% respectively) but that doesn't mean they're earning interest in their checking account. It's also worth noting median transaction account value was for 2013 (this is the federal reserve data) $4100."


"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a ""lesser bad"" way to invest (MPT).   If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct."


why sell?  Because the stock no longer fits your strategy.  Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else.  Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes.  That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.


"You don't offer any specifics, so I'm guessing a little about what you're talking about, but here's a few thoughts: Remember that all tax-related transactions are reconciled when you file. All of your activity for the year is totaled up and (for the most part) when during the year things happen is irrelevant.   Your gross taxable income is calculated (which will exclude any ""pre-tax"" activity, deduction applied (which will any include and ""post-tax"" deductions), tax liability calculated, and withholdings subtracted to get your net tax due.  Whether you have ""pre-tax"" activity and less tax withheld or ""after-tax"" activity with a deduction and reduce your net tax, the net effect should be the same."


Should you care? From Vanguard: The long-term impact of investment costs on portfolio balances   Assuming a starting balance of $100,000 and a yearly return of 6%, which is reinvested Check out this chart, reflecting the impact of relatively small expense ratios on your 30 year return:  All else being equal you should very much care about expense ratios. You end up with a significantly smaller amount if your pre-expense return is the same. A 0.75% difference in ER compounds to 20% over 30 years. If so, how should I take them into consideration when comparing funds? I'm in the U.S. if that matters. If they track the same index, cheaper is better. The cases where higher expense ratios might be better are if you believe that index will outperform the market by enough to recoup the cost of the ER.  There is significant research that most funds do not do this.


I thought this was because credit card companies charge the retailer a fee to accept credit card payments. If you spend $100, the retailer pays $1 (or whatever percentage they have negotiated) to the credit card provider.  Handing over $100 cash and paying $1 fee to Visa means a loss to the retailer. The same transaction on $100 worth of product means the loss is accepted out of the profit margin which the retailer accepts to attract custom.


"This may be closed as not quite PF, but really ""startup"" as it's a business question.  In general, you should talk to a professional if you have this type of question, specifics like this regarding your tax code. I would expect that as a business, you will use a proper paper trail to show that money, say 1000 units of currency, came in and 900 went out. This is a service, no goods involved. The transaction nets you 100, and you track all of this. In the end you have the gross profit, and then business expenses. The gross amount, 1000, should not be the amount taxed, only the final profit."


Pretty simple: When is Cash Value Life Insurance a good or bad idea? It is never a good idea. How can life insurance possibly work as investment? It can't.  Just as car, home, or health insurance is not an investment.  Note for counter example providers:  intent to commit insurance fraud is not an investment. Why not live your life so in 15 or 20 years you are debt free, have a nice emergency fund built and have a few 100 thousand in investments?  Then you can self-insure.  If you die with a paid off home, no debt, 20K in a money market, and 550,000 in retirement accounts would your spouse and children be taken care of?


It would be quite the trick for (a) the government to run all year and get all its revenue in April when taxes are due and (b) for people to actually save the right amount to be able to cut that check each year. W2 employers withhold the estimated federal and state taxes along with the payroll (social security) tax from each paycheck. Since the employer doesn't know how many kids you have, or how much mortgage interest, etc you will take deductions for, you can submit a W4 form to adjust withholdings.   The annual Form 1040 in April is to reconcile exact numbers, some people get a refund of some of what they paid in, others owe some money.  If one is self-employed, they are required to pay quarterly estimated taxes. And they, too, reconcile exact numbers in April.


I believe moving reimbursement has to be counted as income no matter when you get it. I'd just put it under miscellaneous income with an explanation.


It is possible to not use checks in the US. I personally use a credit card for almost everything and often have no cash in my wallet at all. I never carry checks with me. If we wanted to, we could pay all of our monthly bills without checks as well, and many people do this. 30 years ago, grocery stores didn't generally accept credit cards, so it was cash or check, though most other kinds of stores and restaurants did. Now, the only stores that I have encountered in years that do not accept credit cards are a local chicken restaurant, and the warehouse-shopping store Costco. (Costco accepts its own credit card, but not Mastercard or Visa.) Still, we do pay the majority of our monthly bills via check, and it would not be shocking to see someone paying for groceries with a check. I can't name the last time I saw someone write a check at a store exactly, but I've never seen any cashier or other patrons wonder what a check-writer was trying to do. Large transactions, like buying a car or house, would still use checks -- probably cashier's or certified checks and not personal checks, though.


This is one of those too good to be true things that is actually true. Why? Because only you can do this. Only you can deduct for primary home mortgage interest, only you can get a low cost mortgage (others would have to get investor mortgages at a higher interest rate). So its only a great deal for you. More people would do it if they could, but they can't, thats why you can and should do this. I have a similar setup and it is terrific.


Thanks for the extra info on the property tax. So it sounds like it's going to be $1500 for a $150k house. I'm sure even if it's sold for $150 the state might still value it at $15k and you'll end up with $150 in property taxes which is basically nothing.


Many mutual fund companies (including Vanguard when I checked many years ago) require smaller minimum investments (often $1000) for IRA and 401k accounts.  Some also allow for smaller investments into their funds for  IRA accounts if you set up an automatic investment plan that contributes  a fixed amount of money each month or each quarter.  On the other hand,  many mutual fund companies charge an annual account maintenance fee ($10? $20? $25? more?) per fund for IRA investments unless the balance in the fund is above a certain amount (often $5K or $10K$).  This fee can be paid in cash or deducted from the IRA investment, and the former option is vastly better. So, diversification into multiple funds while starting out with an IRA is not that great an idea. It is far better to get diversification through investment in an S&P 500 Index fund (VFINX since you won't have access to @JoeTaxpayer's VIIIX) or a Total Market Index fund or, if you prefer, a Target Retirement Fund, and then branch out into other types of mutual funds as your investment grows through future contributions and dividends etc. To answer your question about fund minimums, the IRA account is separate from a taxable investment account, and the minimum rule applies to each separately. But, as noted above, there often are smaller minimums for tax-deferred accounts.


If you throw up a 20 year chart on the 10 year you can see it isn't fluctuating around 2%.  It happens to be at 2% now but it has been relentlessly driving lower for at least 20 years.  My own personal biased opinion is that it is a market infested with ultra-wealthy people who aren't looking for returns.  They just basically want to maintain what they already sucked out of the system.


How would you compute the earnings for governments that are some of the main issuers of bonds and debt? When governments run deficits they would have a negative earnings ratio that makes the calculation quite hard to evaluate.


Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour.  Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end.  Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved.  Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect.


No tax consequences to you. Tax consequences to your sister. From your comment: My sister is single, but my wife and I have a son. So we can avail   $14000 x3 = $42000 without the need to report it. The remainder   ($70000-$42000) = $28000 will be reported against the lifetime   exclusion by my sister on her return. Per my understanding, the $28000   is also not subject to any gift tax It is subject to gift tax, and she must submit gift tax return (form 709) to the IRS. On that return she can choose to apply part of the lifetime exemption and reduce the lifetime limit, or pay the tax and keep the lifetime limit. If she applies the exemption, she needs to keep track of it, so that it could be properly applied next time, or when she passes away. The lifetime exemption is in fact intended for the estate tax. But people can chose and apply it to gifts during lifetime and reduce the exemption for estate. This is something of consequence to take into account. Yearly $14K cap is not related to the lifetime exemption and is for gifts per donor per donee. Breaking the gift into several occasions over several years helps reducing the tax burden on the donor without touching the lifetime exclusion and affecting the estate tax. But if you don't have the time...


I think it depends on who is being paid for your app.  Do you have a company the is being paid?  Or is it you personally? If you have a company then that income will disappear by offsetting it through expenses to get the software developed. If they are paying you personally then you can probably still get the income to disappear by file home-office expenses. I think either way you need to talk to an accountant. If you don't want to mess with it since the amount of income is small then I would think you can file it as additional income (maybe a 1099).


"If you are talking about a home office, you don't ""charge"" the business anything. If the area is used exclusively as an office you pro-rate by square footage just the actual expenses.  TurboTax recent published an article ""Can I Take the Home Office Deduction?"" which is a must read if you don't understand the process. (Note: I authored said article.)"


Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges.  They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not.  It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash.  You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation.  It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).


"a lot of companies will ""class"" their shares and the founders will hold on to the A class shares so that they can distribute more than 50% but still retain the majority of control over company decisions. A lot of this stuff is set out in the underwriting."


So let's talk about the nation scale which is what the equation savings = investments is referring to.  In that context, does an investment merely mean the purchase of a financial asset or an investment in some physical asset or productive capital? I like to think of investment as building a factory, developing land, or spending money on R&D. But in the economic sense, merely transforming cash into a financial asset like treasuries is also considered investment, correct? As a matter of fact, just merely leaving cash in a deposit account can technically be counted towards investment?  Am I understanding this correctly or am I fundamentally missing something?


Your basic assumption is incorrect. You don't normally go to a bank to borrow money to invest, but brokerages do it all the time. It is called trading on margin.


"Selling as well as buying a stock are part science and part art form.  I remember once selling a stock at its 52 week high too. That particular stock ""quadrupled"" in value over the next 52 weeks.  Mind you I made 50% ROI on the stock but my point is that none of us have a crystal ball on whether a particular stock will ever stop or start going up or stop or start going down. If someone had those answers they wouldn't be telling you they would be practicing them to make more money! Make up your mind what you want to make and stick by your decisions.  Bulls make money when stocks go up and Bears make money when they go down but pigs don't make money. -RobF"


Any time you are optimizing a portfolio, the right horizon to use for computing the statistics you will use for optimization (expected return, covariance, etc.) will be the same as your rebalance/trading frequency.  If you expect your trading strategy to trade once a day, you should use daily data for optimization.  Ditto for monthly or quarterly.  If at all possible you should use statistics across the board that are computed at the same frequency as your trading. Regarding currency pricing, I see no reason you can't take the reported prices and convert them to whatever currency you want using that day's foriegn exchange rate.  Foreign exchange rates are available for free at the Fed and elsewhere.  Converting prices from one currency to another is not rocket science. Since you are contemplating putting actual money behind this, note that using data to compute statistics is less reliable for lower statistical moments.  The mean (expected return) is the first moment, so using historical returns is extremely unreliable at predicting future returns.  The variances and covariances are second moments, they are better.  Skewness and kurtosis, yet better.  The fact that the expected return can't reliably be estimated from past returns is the major downfall of the Markowitz method (resulting portfolios are often very crazy and will depend critically on the data period you use to set them up).   There are approaches to fixing this, such as Black-Litterman's (1992) method, but they get complicated fast.


>if I loan you $500 a night every night for 5 days and those loans allow you to earn $100 totally risk free how much have I loaned you? Does it even matter, because the end of result is I essentially gave you $100.  A bank lends me $10k to start a business.  I eventually make $5 million dollars with my business.  How much was my loan?  DOESN'T MATTER, THE BANK GAVE ME $5 MILLION.


There are Patterns inside of Patterns. You will see short term patterns (flags / pennants) inside of long term patterns (trend lines, channels) and typically you want to trade those short term patterns in line with the direction of the long term pattern.  Take a look at the attached chart of GPN. I would like to recommend two excellent books on Chart Patterns. Richard W. Schabacker book he wrote in the 1930's. It is the basis for modern technical pattern analysis.  Technical Analysis and Stock Market Profits  Peter Brandt Diary of a Professional Commodity Trader. He takes you through analysis and trades.


I've actually had the same problem several years running, and it's solved by filing my corporate taxes, then taking those schedules, and applying them to my 1040, along with a Schedule C  You'll want to work with an accountant on this, but basically you're going to take the total set of business expenses as 1 chunk, then write them off your income (as one chunk).  I always recommend an accountant for this, but that's the general idea that I've used, and for the last 10 years, it's worked great.


Doesn't work as it would be inflationary.  Businesses would raise prices knowing they could get more revenue. This cycles throughout the supply chains which in turn cause prices of other products to increase etc.  And why on earth you wouldn't means test something like this beyond me.


I can tell you the reason the people who are calling you think you ought to use life insurance as an investment. What they will tell you: It is a way to avoid taxes. What they are thinking: It is a way for me to sell an investment with a huge commission. Whole life insurance as an investment really doesn't make sense for all but a very small minority of investors. If you have people that depend on your income to survive, buy term life insurance. It is much more practical and affordable.


One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it.  I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property.  For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA.  It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.


"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of ""buy high, sell low"", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably ""time the market"", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market."


Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death.  The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax.  The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed.  Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling.  Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend.  Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional.


There are a few things to consider. The answers others gave here are correct, but I'll offer some reasons you may not want to roll to an IRA:


David Schechtmann provide the best services are set this week for a US soldier from Tennessee who was unaccounted for after being killed by German troops during World War II.Media outlets reports a funeral for Pfc. Reece Gass will be held Saturday at Doughty-Stevens Funeral Home in Greeneville. He’ll be buried with full military honors at a cemetery in Cross Anchor.


If I were in your shoes, I would invest conservatively fully aware that for the next few years the stock market is going to be depressed, but then again, don't take that as advice.  Every situation is different, weigh the pros and cons carefully and if required, consult a qualified professional.


A target date fund is NOT a world market index. There is no requirement that it be weighted based on the weights of the various world stock markets. If anything, historically (since the invention of target date funds), a 2:1 ratio is actually pretty low. 6:1 is, or was, probably more common. Just a token amount to non-US investments.


"You make a good point, it's practically another ""pump and dump"" scheme for them no matter what actually happens to Bitcoin.  And I find the overall increase in debt in US to be an ongoing concern for the US markets. Until Moody's gives us back are old credit rating I'm not going to hold out high-hopes for an improvement."


The data for ES_F normally is joined on the contract expiry date, i.e. june is joined to the next month on the expiry date.  The discrepancy to the real thing in practice might be significant, as seasonal strategies (as we call these) are mined fairly often.


"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out  For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, ""Thinking, Fast and Slow"", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor').  In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money."


thanks! hence the etf - I hoped to get an ETF of say 20-25 positions, out of which 12 will lose in value, 10 will stay flat or lose a bit, and 2-3 go AAPL, bringing the total ETF up by a solid 10% or so :) and then the divident game begins.


Since your YouTube income is considered self-employment income and because you probably already made more than $400 in net income (after deducting expenses from the $4000 you've received so far), you will have to pay self-employment tax and file a return.  This is according to the IRS's Publication 17 (2016), Your Federal Income Tax, so assumes the same rules for 2016 will remain in effect for 2017: You are self-employed if you: Carry on a trade or business as a sole proprietor, Are an independent contractor, Are a member of a partnership, or Are in business for yourself in any other way. Self-employment can include work in addition to your regular full-time business activities, such as certain part-time work you do at home or in addition to your regular job. You must file a return if your gross income is at least as much as the filing requirement amount for your filing status and age (shown in Table 1-1). Also, you must file Form 1040 and Schedule SE (Form 1040), Self-Employment Tax, if: Your net earnings from self-employment (excluding church employee income) were $400 or more, or You had church employee income of $108.28 or more. (See Table 1-3.) Use Schedule SE (Form 1040) to figure your self-employment tax. Self-employment tax is comparable to the social security and Medicare tax withheld from an employee's wages. For more information about this tax, see Pub. 334, Tax Guide for Small Business. I'd also note that your predicted income is getting close to the level where you would need to pay Estimated Taxes, which for self-employed people work like the withholding taxes employers remove their employees paychecks and pay to the government. If you end up owing more than $1000 when you file your return you could be assessed penalties for not paying the Estimated Taxes. There is a grace period if you had to pay no taxes in the previous year (2016 in this case), that could let you escape those penalties.


Since you only own half of the house, you would most likely need the cooperation of whoever owns the other half in order to use it as collateral for a loan, but if you can do that, there's no reason you couldn't do what you're talking about.  The complication is that if you default on the loan, the bank isn't going to seize half of the house.  They'll repossess the entire house, sell it, and take what they're owed out of the proceeds, leaving you and whoever owns the other 50% to fight over the remnants. Even if the owner of the other half is family, they may be hesitant to risk losing the house if you don't pay your mortgage, so this could be a dicey conversation.


Lots of good advice on investing already. You may also want to think about two things: A Bausparvertrag. You can set this up for different monthly saving rates. You'll get a modest interest payment, and once you have saved up enough (the contract is zuteilungsreif), you will be eligible for a loan at a low rate. However, you can only use the loan for building, buying or renovating real estate. With interest rates as low as they are right now, this is not overly attractive. However, depending on your salary, you may qualify for subsidies, and these could indeed be rather attractive. This may be helpful (in German). A Riester-Rente. This is a subsidized saving scheme - you save something every year and again get subsidies at the end of the year. I think the salary thresholds where you qualify for a subsidy are a bit higher for the Riester-Rente than for a Bausparvertrag, and even if you don't qualify for a subsidy, your contributions will be deducted from your taxable income. I wouldn't invest all my leftover money in these, considering that you commit yourself for the medium to long term, but they might well be attractive options for at least part of your money, say 20-25% of what you aim at saving every month. Finally, as others have written: banks and insurance companies exist to make money, and they live off their provisions. Get an independent financial advisor you pay by the hour, who doesn't get provisions, and have him help you.


Yes, you need to include income from your freelance work on your tax return.  In the eyes of the IRS, this is self-employment income from your sole-proprietorship business. The reason you don't see it mentioned in the 1040EZ instructions is that you can't use the 1040EZ form if you have self-employment income.  You'll need to use the full 1040 form.  Your business income and expenses will be reported on a Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ, and the result will end up on Line 12 of the 1040.  Take a look at the requirements at the top of the C-EZ form; you probably meet them and can use it instead of the more complicated C form. If you have any deductible business expenses related to your freelance business, this would be done on Schedule C or C-EZ. If your freelance income was more than $400, you'll also need to pay self-employment tax.  To do this, you file Schedule SE, and the tax from that schedule lands on form 1040 Line 57.


Most of it is probably due to ignorance and disbelief. A few years ago, I started doing week-long trades with my IRA. For a while I would make money each time, and over the first year I had about a 20% rate of return. If you asked me if I thought I was smarter than other people in the market, I would've told you no - I just spent more time, and most people accepted a small financial penalty for not having to spend the time directly managing their portfolio. Then I made a few poor choices, and all my previous earnings disappeared quickly. In the short term, yeah, things were great, but that didn't extrapolate out. So now that I'm a few years into investing, I'm almost entirely in index funds.


I would say that there is no real difference.  Asset management companies that is part of large banking groups usually seat in separate entities and operate independently from the rest of the bank. Assuming proper procedures (and regulators usually check that) are in place they will not share information with the rest of the bank and their assets are clearly segregated from the rest of the bank. They have the same fiduciary duties as an independent AM and are probably using the broker/dealer services of other banks as well as their parent. Reputation is a key issue for banks and conflict of interests are usually managed properly. Independence also comes and goes. The corporate history of Neuberger Berman is a good example. Neuberger Berman was once an independent asset manager. In 2003, it merged with Lehman Brothers, thus loosing its independence. When Lehman went bankrupt in 2008, NB did not join its parent company in bankruptcy and did not lose the assets of its clients. The company continued to operate until it was acquired by the management. Finally it is mostly a question of marketing and positioning.


"A couple of distinctions. First, if you were to ""invest in real estate"" were you planning to buy a home to live in, or buy a home to rent out to someone else?  Buying a home as a primary residence really isn't ""investing in real estate"" per se.  It's buying a place to live rather than renting one.  Unless you rent a room out or get a multi-family unit, your primary residence won't be income-producing.  It will be income-draining, for the most part.  I speak as a homeowner. Second, if you are buying to rent out to someone else, buying a single home is quite a bit different than buying an REIT.  The home is a lot less liquid, the transaction costs are higher, and all of your eggs are in one basket.  Having said that, though, if you buy one right and do your homework it can set you on the road for a very comfortable retirement."


On what basis did you do your initial allocation of funds to each stock?   If you are 're-balancing' that implies returning things to their initial allocation.  You can do this without any research or recommendations. If you started out with say 10 stocks and 10% of the funds allocated to each stock, then re-balancing would simply be either buying/selling to return to that initial allocation.  If you are contributing to the portfolio you could adjust where the new money goes to re-balance without selling.  Or if you are drawing money from the portfolio, then you could adjust what you are selling. If on the other hand you are trying to decide if you want to alter the stocks the portfolio is HOLDING, then you have an entirely different question from 're-balancing'


for starters get a cheap easy accounting software pack like quickbooks and have the salesmen train you on it's use and set-up. the 50k you put into the company will count as paid up share capital. then any future withdrawal from company account will show as loan to director.


"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient.  25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets.   For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated.  So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to ""retire"" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock.  Regarding health benefits...  I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC.   Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no ""you have to be with the company for X length of time"" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option.  The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably.  The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well.  Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team."


Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly,  go to a mutual fund company directly    and make an investment with them directly instead of making the    investment through a brokerage account.  Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with  expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts).  At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.


"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is ""gentrification,"" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four ""guys"" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four ""girls"" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be ""guys.""  I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump ""cut his teeth"" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what ""feels right,"" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty."


She filed for 0 withholdings in her W4, so my (unprofessional) guess   was that she'd be owed money, and therefore the IRS wouldn't care much   if she didn't file her taxes.† Maybe, but doesn't she want that money back? Is she at as much risk as any other individual of being audited and   penalized to the same degree if she skips filing her taxes? Audited and penalized are not the same. She's at the same risk of being audited, and even slightly higher since the IRS got reports of her wages, but didn't get the matching report from her. They may want to ask why. But it doesn't mean she's going to be penalized for anything. Being audited doesn't mean you did something wrong. Or does the IRS tend to overlook such individuals. The IRS might want to overlook because they're the ones owning money. She cannot get a refund without filing a tax return. She'd file her taxes today if she could, but the worry is that time's   running out Filing an extension is free and it postpones the deadline to file till OCTOBER!


Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.


Lobby lobby lobby, Don't invest in renewable the returns are god awful.   Renewable's are so rational and logical as a future energy source that I can't see it being any other way. Producing energy that replenishes over time seems like a no brainer


"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish.  As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have ""emerging markets"" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research."


You should definitely favor holding bonds in tax-advantaged accounts, because bonds are not tax-efficient. The reason is that more of their value comes in the form of regular, periodic distributions, rather than an increase in value as is the case with stocks or stock funds. With stocks, you can choose to realize all that appreciation when it is most advantageous for you from a tax perspective. Additionally, stock dividends often receive lower tax rates. For much more detail, see Tax-efficient fund placement.


Well this is not the best situation.  Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income.  Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income.  Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year.  At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle.  At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving.  If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this.  They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return.  Which of course further complicates matters.     This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career.  One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability.  The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again.  That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money.


There is no fixed formulae, its more of how much you can negotiate Vs how many others are willing to work at a lower cost. Typically in software industry the rates for part time work would be roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2 times that of the full time work for the same job. With the above premise roughly the company would be willing to pay $100,000 for 2000 hrs of Part time work(1), translating into around $50 per hour. How much you actually get would depend on if there is someone else who can work for less say at $30 at hour. (1) The company does not have 2000 hrs of work and hence its engaging part time worker instead of full time at lesser cost.


Cutting 25% from pensions is a big deal. This is why I'm going to get out of the company pension. If the money isn't mine, what is it? Are they giving me more return on my interest than normal to make up for the fact they can decide to back out of the agreement at any point? No.


Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.


"VaR is statistical, so you can set the confidence interval to 5%, 1%, 0.01%, etc. VaR is the same thing as standard deviation applied over a specific time frame, its just a matter how you come up with it. For example the 95% VaR is something like 1.65 standard deviations of the returns. as you increase the number of std dev (Z score), you're confidence interval widens and you capture more of the outliers. if you set it to 99.99%, you can envision the return distributions for all but the .01%. choose between the 2? VaR is more practical on a day to day, but shortfall is better for extreme events, like 2008 when lehman collapsed or the russian debt crisis when yields blew out.  VaR has a lot of caveats about it, in that it considers everything ""under normal market conditions"". reality is, under normal market conditions, you're less concerned about risk. you want to know expectations when things go really wrong. VaR is best used as part of a risk management package, in conjunction with stress tests, duration/ DV01, liquidity analysis, etc, but its sort of leaves a lot of holes as a standalone. from a reporting and regulatory standpoint, VaR is generally accepted, and many firms reporting one day VaR in their financials (JPM, Goldman).  tracking error tends to be company specific. from what i've seen, its mostly funds who have to manage to a benchmark, like a pension or FoF with a specific mandate, so they can't have too much deviation from that. you'll see this with beta too, but its the same idea.   capital adequacy is slightly different from market risk. your PB or whoever will asses your portfolio holdings and apply a haircut to them based on risk and liquidity. for example you'll get close to 100% margin credit for stocks, but only a fraction of that applied to your account for a CDO^2 since liquidity is non-existent."


"According to communication expert and author of Small Message, Big Impact: The Elevator Speech Effect, Terri Sjodin defines an elevator speech this way:  >""An elevator speech is a brief presentation that introduces a product, service, philosophy, or an idea. The name suggests the notion that the message should be delivered in the time span of an elevator ride, up to about three minutes. Its general purpose is to intrigue and inspire the listener to want to hear more of the presenter's complete proposition in the near future."""


It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either.  Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check.  Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated.  So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:


I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.


Hey Sheehan, I believe Schwab provides this info.  None of the online free portfolio managers I know of gives you this info.  The now defunct MS Money used to have this. The best thing to do is to use a spreadsheet.  Or you could use the one I use.  http://www.moneycone.com/did-you-beat-the-market-mr-investor/ . (disclaimer: that's my blog)


I fail to see how that changes the point. And no I'm not suggesting that an economics education is (completely) worthless but it's meant to be used as a framework for good public policy. Increasingly it has not served that goal very well but has done an excellent job of increasing wealth disparity.


While it is true that if the Federal reserve bank makes a change in their rate there is not an immediate change in the other rates that impact consumers; there is some linkage between the federal rate, and the costs of banks and other lenders regarding borrowing money. Of course the cost of borrowing money does impact the costs for businesses looking to expand, which does impact their ability to hire more workers and expand capacity. A change in business expansion does impact employment and unemployment... Then changes in employment can cause a change in raises, which can cause changes in prices which is inflation... Plus the lenders that lend to business see the flow of new loans change as the employment outlook change.  If the costs of doing business for the bank changes or the flow of loans change, they do adjust the rates they pay depositors and the rates they charge borrowers... How long it will take to change the cost of an auto loan? No way to tell.  Keep in mind that in complex systems, change can be delayed, and won't move in lock step. For example the price of gas\s doesn't always move the same way a price of a barrel of oil does.


IMHO these people need to understand finance.  I think Dave Ramsey is the best for this kind of situation.  They need their butts kicked.  What kind of parent spends money on playing cards when they have a child and not a place of their own?  Answer:  Parents that needs to grow up.   Most of all they probably have an income problem.  I would assume that the husband stays at home because he does not earn enough to justify quality child care.  Okay how about he cares for a few other kids and turns watching one kid into an income stream?  Duh? Giving them money will only hurt them in the long run.  They are holding onto childhood, avoiding becoming adults.  No amount of money you can give them will dig them out of their rut, in fact it may only prolong it.   MTG is an intellectual game.  If he spent half as much brain power on earning a living, the could probably be well off, and earn enough to have a tidy budget for gaming.   Sorry Yamikuronue, but I disagree with your first comment.


You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.


"You can make estimated tax payments on Form 1040-ES.  Most people who make such payments need to do it quarterly because the typical reasons for making estimated payments is something like self-employment income that a person will get throughout the year.  If you have a one-time event like a single, large sale of stock, however, there's nothing wrong with doing it just one quarter out of the year. When it comes time to file your taxes, part of the calculate is whether you were timely quarter-by-quarter not just for the entire year, so if you do have a big ""one-time"" event mid-year, don't wait until the end of the year to file an estimated payment.  Of course, if the event is at the end of the year, then you can make it a 4th quarter estimated payment."


I hate when the volume during a show is reasonable and the volume in the commercials hurts my ears. But, this has been tried before and it will not work.  We need television receivers with a smart volume feature that normalizes the volume continuously.


Gold is traded on the London stock exchange (LSE) and the New York stock exchange (NYSE) under various separate asset tickers, mainly denominated in sterling and US dollars respectively.  These stocks will reflect FX changes very quickly.  If you sold LSE gold and foreign exchanged your sterling to dollars to buy NYSE gold you would almost certainly lose on the spreads upon selling, FX'ing and re-buying. In short, the same asset doesn't exist in multiple currencies.  It may have the same International Securities Identification Number (ISIN), but it can trade with different Stock Exchange Daily Official List (SEDOL) identifiers, reflecting different currencies and/or exchanges, each carrying a different price at any one time.


If your landlord is OK with you subletting your apartment - then that's all that the landlord has to do with that. It doesn't really matter if the landlord is a private person or a publicly trade corporation/fund. No relevance at all. As to your own reporting - you're receiving rent. That is income to you. You can deduct the portion of your expenses (including rent) attributable to the area you rent out. All this goes to your Schedule E. Any positive remainder becomes your taxable income. Any deduction must be substantiated (i.e.: you'll have to keep all the receipts for all the expenses you used for the deduction for as long as the tax year is open, which is at least the next 3 years after filing).


The bucket concept. What ever works. Some people literally use envelopes, putting cash into each category for there upcoming bills. I prefer not to mix my long term investments. My daughter's college fund is in a series of separate accounts from our retirement money. I won't criticize your CFP's comments, because advice is individual, her approach probably works well for her clients. The important thing isn't the focus on the words, but the end result. Spend less than you earn, save for each of your goals.  I removed any IRA/US reference and comment on bucket concept.