"Your bank has discretion to honor checks after 6 months, so you should talk to your bank about their specific policy. In general, banks won't accept ""large"" stale checks. The meaning of ""large"" varies -- $25,000 in NYC, as little as $2k in other places. Banks that service high-volume check issuers (like rebate companies) reject checks at 180 days. For business purposes, I think some banks will create accounts for specific mailings or other purposes as well. (i.e. 2011 refund account) The accounts close after a year."


"Some investors worry about interest rate risk because they Additional reason is margin trading which is borrowing money to invest in capital markets. Since margin trading includes minimum margin requirements and maintenance margin to protect lender ""such as a broker""  , a decrease in the value of bonds might trigger a threat of a margin call There are other reasons why investors care about interest rate risk  such as spread trade investors who benefit from difference in short term/ long term interest rates. Such investors borrow short term loans -which enables them to pay low interest- and lend long term loans - which enables them to gain high interest-. Any disturbance between the interest rate spread between short term and long term bonds might affect investor's profit and might even lead to losses. In summary , it all depends on you investment objective and financial condition. You should consult with your financial adviser to help plan for your financial goals."


I'm not asking if I should carry a balance to the end of the billing period and accrue interest Typically (I say typically because there may be some fringe outlier exception product that begins accruing interest immediately), if you're not carrying a balance already you will not be charged interest for carrying a balance during the billing period.   You accrue a balance, you're issued a statement, if you pay the statement before the due date indicated you don't pay interest; even if your statement balance is less than the current actual balance on the account.  If you carry a balance through that due date you begin to accrue interest.  Not only on the balance carried but on all new charges as well.  But as long as you consistently pay your statement balance before the statement due date you will not be charged any interest. As for a reason why you may want to take advantage of this, simply to ease the administration of your finances.  You just don't need to touch the accounts that frequently to avoid interest charges.  Sure you can let your money sit in an interest bearing account and earn a couple dollars a year but really, you just don't need to focus on your CC charges this frequently.


"The offering price is what the company will raise by selling the shares at that price.  However, this isn't usually what the general public sees as often there will be shows to drive up demand so that there will be buyers for the stock.  That demand is what you see on the first day when the general public can start buying the stock.  If one is an employee, relative or friend of someone that is offered, ""Friends and Family"" shares they may be able to buy at the offering price. Pricing of IPO from Wikipedia states around the idea of pricing: A company planning an IPO typically appoints a lead manager, known as   a bookrunner, to help it arrive at an appropriate price at which the   shares should be issued. There are two primary ways in which the price   of an IPO can be determined. Either the company, with the help of its   lead managers, fixes a price (""fixed price method""), or the price can   be determined through analysis of confidential investor demand data   compiled by the bookrunner (""book building""). Historically, some IPOs both globally and in the United States have   been underpriced. The effect of ""initial underpricing"" an IPO is to   generate additional interest in the stock when it first becomes   publicly traded. Flipping, or quickly selling shares for a profit, can   lead to significant gains for investors who have been allocated shares   of the IPO at the offering price. However, underpricing an IPO results   in lost potential capital for the issuer. One extreme example is   theglobe.com IPO which helped fuel the IPO ""mania"" of the late 90's   internet era. Underwritten by Bear Stearns on November 13, 1998, the   IPO was priced at $9 per share. The share price quickly increased   1000% after the opening of trading, to a high of $97. Selling pressure   from institutional flipping eventually drove the stock back down, and   it closed the day at $63. Although the company did raise about $30   million from the offering it is estimated that with the level of   demand for the offering and the volume of trading that took place the   company might have left upwards of $200 million on the table. The danger of overpricing is also an important consideration. If a   stock is offered to the public at a higher price than the market will   pay, the underwriters may have trouble meeting their commitments to   sell shares. Even if they sell all of the issued shares, the stock may   fall in value on the first day of trading. If so, the stock may lose   its marketability and hence even more of its value. This could result   in losses for investors, many of whom being the most favored clients   of the underwriters. Perhaps the best known example of this is the   Facebook IPO in 2012. Underwriters, therefore, take many factors into consideration when   pricing an IPO, and attempt to reach an offering price that is low   enough to stimulate interest in the stock, but high enough to raise an   adequate amount of capital for the company. The process of determining   an optimal price usually involves the underwriters (""syndicate"")   arranging share purchase commitments from leading institutional   investors. Some researchers (e.g. Geoffrey C., and C. Swift, 2009) believe that   the underpricing of IPOs is less a deliberate act on the part of   issuers and/or underwriters, than the result of an over-reaction on   the part of investors (Friesen & Swift, 2009). One potential method   for determining underpricing is through the use of IPO Underpricing   Algorithms. This may be useful for seeing the difference in that ""theglobe.com"" example where the offering price is $9/share yet the stock traded much higher than that initially."


Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company.  Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another


Is the Grant Date or the Vest Date used when determining the 12-month cutoff for long-term and short-term capital gains? You don't actually acquire the stock until it's vested, so that is the date and price used to determine your cost basis and short-term/long-term gain/loss.  The grant date really has no tax bearing. If you held the stock (time between vesting and sale) for more than one year you will owe long-term CG tax, if less than one year you will owe short-term CG tax.


With all due respect to The David, the $1000 is best put against 20%+ debt, no sitting in checking as part of some emergency fund.  I'd agree with the decision to pay off the lower rate card. Why? Because we can do the math, and can see the cost in doing so. Low enough that other factors come in, namely, a freed up card. That card can function as the emergency one in the short term. Long term, once these high rate cards are paid off, you'll build your proper emergency fund, but the cost is too high right now.  The $4000 is a nice start, but the most important thing is to get your budget under control. Only you can decide how much you can cut back, and go after this debt as if it were life or death.


I have no idea what the traditional accounting way of dealing with this might be; but does your accounts package has the concept of subaccounts within a bank account?  If so, to me it would make sense that when a cheque is written, you move money in the accounts package from the bank account to a subaccount named 'Cheques Written'; then when it is cashed, move money from that subaccount to the supplier.  Then from a reporting perspective, when you want a report that will correspond to your actual bank statement, run a report that includes the subacconut; when you want a report that tells you how much you have available to spend, rune  a report that excludes the subaccount.


"Gift taxes are paid by the giver, not the ""givee"". You'd have to claim the $500 on your income tax forms, though."


This is something that will vary from situation to situation. What is the secured debt? What is the interest rate? Does your retirement account have a match? What are your other financial obligations? How much money do you have available after meeting all of your minimum financial obligations. All of these are very important factors in deciding what the best course of action would be.


FICO is a financial services company, whose customers are financial services companies.  Their products are for the benefit of their customers, not consumers. The purpose of the credit score system is two-fold.  First, the credit score is intended to make it easy for lending institutions (FICO's customers) to assess the risk of loans that they make.  This is probably based on science, although the FICO studies and even the FICO score formula are proprietary secrets. The second purpose of the credit score is to incentivize consumers into borrowing money.  And they have done a great job of that.  If you think you might need a loan in the future, perhaps a mortgage or a car loan, you need a credit score.  And the only way to get a credit score is to start borrowing money now that you don't need.   Yes, someone with a good income and a long history of paying utility bills on time would be a great credit risk for a mortgage.  However, that person will have no credit score, and therefore be declared by FICO as a bad credit risk.  On the other hand, someone with a low income, who struggles, but succeeds, to make the minimum payment on their credit card, would have a better credit score.  The advice offered to the first person is start borrowing money now, even though you don't need it. I'm not anti-credit card.  I use a credit card responsibly, paying it off in full every month.  I use it for the convenience.  I don't worry at all about my credit score, but I've been told it is great.  However, there are some people that cannot use a credit card responsibly.  The temptation is too great.  Perhaps they are like problem gamblers, I don't know.  But FICO and the financial services industry have created a system that makes a credit card a necessity in many ways.  These are the people that get hurt in the current system.


Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print.  Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing.  So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.


I don't think that's what it's doing. The commercials have to have the same *average* volume as the shows.  An interesting side effect of this would be that if you have a longer commercial spot, you can have a louder spike in the middle. Want an ad that's twice as loud as the show? Just pay for twice as much ad time!


There is the opportunity cost.  Let's say it cost you $1000 to buy 0.25% discount. Over N number of years that saves you let's say $2000 thus your profit is $1000. What if you took that $1000 and invested it? Would you have more than $2000 after N number of  years? Obviously answering this question is not easy but you can make some educated guesses. For example, you can compare the return you'll likely get from investing in CD or treasury bond. A bit more risky is to invest in the stock market but an index fund should be fairly safe and you can easily find the average return over 5 - 10 year period.  For example, if your loan is $200,000 at 0.25% per year you'll get $500 in savings. Over 10 years that's $5000 - $1000 to buy the point, you end up with $4000.  Using the calculator on this site, I calculated that if you invested in the Dow Jones industrial average between 2007 and 2017  you total return would have been 111% (assuming dividends are reinvested) or you would've had a total of $2110.  I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are but it seems likely that buying points is a pretty good investment if you stay in the house for 10 years or more.


Generally these things are unrelated. Your tax debt is to agency X, your license is (mostly) from agency Y. If your business involves agency X, then it may be a problem. For example, you cannot get a EA license (IRS Enrolled Agent) if you have unsettled tax debt or other tax compliance issues. You should check Michigan state licensing organizations if there are similar dependencies.  Also, some background checks may fail, and some state licenses require them to pass. For example, you can probably not get an active bar registration or a CPA license with an unsettled tax debt. You might have a problem with registering as a Notary Public, or other similar position. You can probably not work in law enforcement as a contractor. If you're on an approved payment plan - then your tax debt is settled unless you stop paying as agreed, and shouldn't be a problem.


How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you  might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to  your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss.  On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up.  Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.


"I've made excellent returns on XIV.    My ""foolproof"" strategy....When shit completely hits the fan and the vix is through the roof for a few days, buy, then sell a few weeks later.  XIV has been very kind to me in situations where everyone seems to overreact."


The law says that you cannot make a contribution (whether tax-deductible or not) to a Traditional IRA for any year unless you (or your spouse if you are filing a joint tax return) have taxable compensation (income earned from the sweat of your brow such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions on sales, and also alimony or separate maintenance payments received under a divorce decree, etc) during that year, and you will not be 70.5 years old by the end of the year for which you are making the contribution. The contribution, of course, can be made up to Tax Day of the following year, and is limited to the lesser of the total compensation and $5500 ($6500 for people over 50).  Assuming that you are OK on the compensation and age issue, yes, you can make a contribution to a Traditional IRA for an year in which you take a distribution from a Roth IRA. Whether you can deduct the Traditional IRA contribution depends on other factors such as your income and whether or not you or your spouse is covered by a workplace retirement plan.


If you get selected for exercise, your broker will liquidate the whole position for you most likely Talk to your broker.


Picking yourself is just what all the fund managers are trying to do, and history shows that the majority of them fails the majority of the time to beat the index fund. That is the core reason of the current run after index funds. What that means is that although it doesn’t sound so hard, it is not easy at all to beat an index consistently. Of course you can assume that you are better than all those high-paid specialists, but I would have some doubt. You might be luckier, but then you might be not.


It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options


"My feeling is that you're basically agreeing to throw away a bucket of money for a lesson that doesn't have to cost a penny. Like another commenter said, you're putting the cart before the horse.  I once asked a similar question to a seasoned investor, though I wasn't in the position to toss my hard-earned cash into the well yet. He told me that the difference between the winners and losers is that the winners don't need the money. I'm not trying to say that there's a ""rich keep getting richer ..."" component here, while schlubs like me get nada.  The real nugget of wisdom he offered was that if anyone wants to do well as investors, we must invest in a way that we're not dependent on the money we have in the market. Instead, manage risk carefully so that you don’t get swept up in the emotional highs and lows.  For you, what I applaud is that you're willing to do your research first. And part of that should be anticipating how you will handle the anxiety when you put your money in at the wrong time or get out a little later than you should.  What I understand now is that you don’t need to be wealthy to “not need the money.” You just need to invest smartly and leave your emotions out of it."


I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.


"While I think this is generally inadvisable, there are sites and communities dedicated to ""points churning"" credit card reward programs.  In general, no there is no easy way to get cash from a credit card, and receive the spending rewards, and not pay fees well in excess of your rewards value. However, there are people who figure out ways to do this kind of thing.  Like buying prepaid Visa cards $500 at a time from drug stores on a 5% bonus rewards month.  Or buying rolls of $1 coins from the US treasury with free shipping. The issue is the source of the fees.  When you spend money on your card the merchant pays a fee.  When you get cash from an ATM not only is there no merchant remitting a fee there is an ATM operator and a network both charging fees."


"The biggest and primary question is how much money you want to live on within retirement. The lower this is, the more options you have available. You will find that while initially complex, it doesn't take much planning to take complete advantage of the tax system if you are intending to retire early. Are there any other investment accounts that are geared towards retirement or long term investing and have some perk associated with them (tax deferred, tax exempt) but do not have an age restriction when money can be withdrawn?  I'm going to answer this with some potential alternatives. The US tax system currently is great for people wanting to early retire. If you can save significant money you can optimize your taxes so much over your lifetime! If you retire early and have money invested in a Roth IRA or a traditional 401k, that money can't be touched without penalty until you're 55/59. (Let's ignore Roth contributions that can technically be withdrawn) Ok, the 401k myth. The ""I'm hosed if I put money into it since it's stuck"" perspective isn't true for a variety of reasons. If you retire early you get a long amount of time to take advantage of retirement accounts. One way is to primarily contribute to pretax 401k during working years. After retiring, begin converting this at a very low tax rate. You can convert money in a traditional IRA whenever you want to be Roth. You just pay your marginal tax rate which.... for an early retiree might be 0%. Then after 5 years - you now have a chunk of principle that has become Roth principle - and can be withdrawn whenever. Let's imagine you retire at 40 with 100k in your 401k (pretax). For 5 years, you convert $20k (assuming married). Because we get $20k between exemptions/deduction it means you pay $0 taxes every year while converting $20k of your pretax IRA to Roth. Or if you have kids, even more. After 5 years you now can withdraw that 20k/year 100% tax free since it has become principle. This is only a good idea when you are retired early because you are able to fill up all your ""free"" income for tax conversions. When you are working you would be paying your marginal rate. But your marginal rate in retirement is... 0%. Related thread on a forum you might enjoy. This is sometimes called a Roth pipeline. Basically: assuming you have no income while retired early you can fairly simply convert traditional IRA money into Roth principle. This is then accessible to you well before the 55/59 age but you get the full benefit of the pretax money. But let's pretend you don't want to do that. You need the money (and tax benefit!) now! How beneficial is it to do traditional 401ks? Imagine you live in a state/city where you are paying 25% marginal tax rate. If your expected marginal rate in your early retirement is 10-15% you are still better off putting money into your 401k and just paying the 10% penalty on an early withdrawal. In many cases, for high earners, this can actually still be a tax benefit overall. The point is this: just because you have to ""work"" to get money out of a 401k early does NOT mean you lose the tax benefits of it. In fact, current tax code really does let an early retiree have their cake and eat it too when it comes to the Roth/traditional 401k/IRA question. Are you limited to a generic taxable brokerage account? Currently, a huge perk for those with small incomes is that long term capital gains are taxed based on your current federal tax bracket. If your federal marginal rate is 15% or less you will pay nothing for long term capital gains, until this income pushes you into the 25% federal bracket.  This might change, but right now means you can capture many capital gains without paying taxes on them. This is huge for early retirees who can manipulate income. You can have significant ""income"" and not pay taxes on it. You can also stack this with before mentioned Roth conversions. Convert traditional IRA money until you would begin owing any federal taxes, then capture long term capital gains until you would pay tax on those. Combined this can represent a huge amount of money per year. So littleadv mentioned HSAs but.. for an early retiree they can be ridiculously good. What this means is you can invest the maximum into your HSA for 10 years, let it grow 100% tax free, and save all your medical receipts/etc. Then in 10 years start withdrawing that money. While it sucks healthcare costs so much in America, you might as well take advantage of the tax opportunities to make it suck slightly less. There are many online communities dedicated to learning and optimizing their lives in order to achieve early retirement. The question you are asking can be answered superficially in the above, but for a comprehensive plan you might want other resources. Some you might enjoy:"


I am very surprised no one mentioned the Stock Repair Option Strategy which has real benefits and is one of the mainstream Option Strategies. Quote: Who Should Consider Using the Stock Repair Strategy? In a nutshell, you are buying call options with current strike price (at-the-money) and sell call options with higher strike price (out-of-the-money), all with the same expiry dates.  The only reason to also sell call options here is to recover your premium paid for the other call options. If you are comfortable paying that premium, you just buy the call options without selling the others. In case your stock will rise moderately to a price between the two strike prices, your call option will rise together with your stock, so you will be faster to recover your money. This is the main reason it is called Repair. If you have sold any call options, as the price rises, you have to be careful when it reaches the strike price of the options sold, as from there on you will begin incurring losses. It is however exactly the lucky outcome you were hoping for, your stock is higher, and you can buy back those loss making options - then or shortly before. If you didn't sell any options and payed your premium, you don't need to worry at all at this stage. WARNING It should be noted that the Stock Repair Strategy offers no protection for your stock price further falling down. In that case all those options will expire worthless or you can sell back the ones your bought but likely not for much. In order to have the downside protection for your stock, there are other strategies, the simplest one being buying a Put Option at-the-money or slightly lower. That will effectively cut your possible losses to the Option Premium (which is the main use of that option).  Again, if you hate to pay that premium, you can offset it by selling other options that you either hope won't be exercised or take steps to protect you against those.


You just need to average out the weekly hours and income over the year. So if his yearly income is $100,000 p.a. then this would average out to $2000 per week of which 15% would be $300 per week. It does not have to be exactly 15% per week as long as over the long run your saving your target 15%. If he gets a pay rise you can include this in the saving plan. Say he gets a 5% increase in pay you would increase the $300 per week by 5% to $315 per week.


Thanks very much.  12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at.  I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what.   For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account.  I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc.  I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree.  I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%


The bank doesn't have to do anything. It is your responsibility to provide the proof of insurance. It is the agent's job, which you through your HOA dues paid for, to provide that proof to you. You shouldn't be registering with icerts. They say so in the first sentence on the registration page: Unit Owners, Do Not Register Here! If you own an existing property,   and have received a letter from your lender requiring an annual   renewal/updated certificate for an association that has recently   expired, please forward that letter to info@iCerts.com to receive   instructions to place your order. If your request is a new loan of any   kind, please contact your lender and request that they either contact   us to place this order, or register below. So you can try that route (sending an email to info@icerts.com), and see if it works. It does cost money, in the range of $20-$100 (I used a different similar service at the time and they charged $75 for this). If it doesn't, you can try and work with the insurance agent. There are some ways to persuade them: California has very strong traditions of consumer protections. In this case, I suggest checking out this site. Let the insurance agent know that as the HOA member - they're working for you, and that in the next HOA meeting you will raise a request to change the insurance agency. Also, remind the agent that the CA Insurance Commission will knock on their doors to ask why they don't provide you with the proof you need. If the HOA management company doesn't help you, you can remind them that they too can be fired. This can be done, and isn't even all that hard. There's a lot of competition in the HOA management market, and it wouldn't be too hard to find a new management company. The HOA management company should have provided you the proof of coverage when they renewed the policy.


Depending on the the requirements of the annuity you might be able to pull back to part time for  a semester, thus reducing the bill for that semester. During that semester either get a job that will allow you to save money, or get an internship related to your major. Some of these programs alternate between work semesters and schools semesters.  Many colleges have an installment plan, where the payments are due every month, they usually spread them out over a 10 month period. Most only charge a nominal fee to set up the plan. This would reduce the amount of money needed to bridge the gap to only a portion of the tuition payments for the spring semester. You could also live off campus to save money. There is no guarantee it will be cheaper, but because the costs aren't fixed and due at the start of the semester, you might be able to stretch your budget.


No.  In a marginal tax system, only additional dollars that push you into a higher bracket are taxed at that higher rate.  If you would pay 15% on $73800, then when you earn over $73800, you will still only pay 15% of the $73800, plus 25% of the extra amount over $73800.  As far as a marginal income tax affects things, you cannot decrease your net income by increasing your salary.  (There can be other potential reasons to keep your income down besides income taxes, as asked in this question, but as the answer there suggests, these often aren't great reasons either.) As far as I know, every income tax system that has differing tax rates works this way.  That is, I'm not aware of any country with an income tax system where you can decrease your net earnings by moving into a higher bracket.


Your calculations look correct in that they will be withholding taxes at the full year income rate even though you will only have 1/3 of that income which will put you in a lower tax bracket. There are online sites where you can fill out a return for free.  You can estimate your return by filling out a return using the numbers on your paystub (you will have to add in your last paystub manually). In regards to when you will get your refund check?  I believe it comes within a month or so of filing.


"Company values (and thus stock prices) rely on a much larger time frame than ""a weekend"".  First, markets are not efficient enough to know what a companies sales were over the past 2-3 days (many companies do not even know that for several weeks).  They look at performance over quarters and years to determine the ""value"" of a company.  They also look forward, not backwards to determine value.  Prior performance only gives a hint of what future performance may be.  If a company shut its doors over a weekend and did no sales, it still would have value based on its future ability to earn profits."


yeah - the point is why should any foreign investor trust you with their money?  just because Bangladesh might have a hot housing market, doesn't make you a reliable or trustworthy partner.  Maybe if you were an established and reputable real estate investor this post might get traction.


The main reason I'm aware of that very few individuals do this sort of trading is that you're not taking into account the transaction costs, which can and will be considerable for a small-time investor. Say your transaction costs you $12, that means in order to come out ahead you'll have to have a fairly large position in a given instrument to make that fee back and some money. Most smaller investors wouldn't really want to tie up 5-6 figures for a day on the chance that you'll get $100 back. The economics change for investment firms, especially market makers that get special low fees for being a market maker (ie, offering liquidity by quoting all the time).


To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.


"Are there other options I haven't thought of? Mutual funds, stocks, bonds. To buy and sell these you don't need a lawyer, a real-estate broker and a banker. Much more flexible than owning real estate. Edit: Re Option 3: With no knowledge of investing the first thing you should do is read a few books. The second thing you should do is invest in mutual funds (and/or ETFs) that track an index, such as the FTSE graph that was posted. Index funds are the safest way to invest for those with no experience. With the substantial amount that you are considering investing it would also be wise to do it gradually. Look up ""dollar cost averaging."""


Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.


You cannot deduct anything. Since you're actually moving, your tax home will move with you. You can only deduct the moving expenses (actual moving - packing, shipping, and hotels while you drive yourself there).


Actually, the rate of change could be more or less constant, but you might have a minimum price that represents your fixed costs.  So you might sell a milligram for $1 (which is ridiculous in terms of per-unit pricing) to cover fixed costs, and add $0.50/lb for each step in size to cover variable costs (cost of raw materials and packaging), so a 2lb bag would be $2, a 5lb bag would be $3.50, a ton would be $1,001, etc.  At the end of the day, you want the marginal revenue (the price that you charge for each additional pound) to be more than the marginal cost (the price per pound it takes to produce the bag).  Any amount over that goes towards your fixed costs - the cost you'd incur if you sold zero product (rent, utilities, overhead, etc.) It's not an exact science, and there are many variables that go into pricing.


Draw up a budget and see where most of you expenses go to. See if you can cut any not essential expenses.  If this doesn't help much you will need to increase your income. Ways to do this without going into debt may be to get a job, ask your parents for money, sell some of your non essential things, tutor fellow students or students in earlier years, just to name a few. Basically, if you want to stay out of debt you income needs to be higher than your expenses. So you either need to reduce your expenses, increase your income, or both. Without further information from yourself it would be quite hard to direct you in the right direction.


Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:


Why do people always seem to forget that plenty of people went and studied all sorts of wacky topics in university during the 1960s and 1970s ... and paid no more for tuition / housing / food / etc than a minimum wage job could support in up front cash?      The problem isn't going to study 4 years of interpretive dance. The problem is the government-induced tuition inflation that will give someone $50k in government-backed loans to go study 4 years of interpretive dance. Get the freaking government out of the tuition inflation business already! And let people go study 4 years of interpretive dance for $1k/year if they so desire.      If you don't believe that nearly 100% of tuition inflation is caused by government-backed loans. Then ask yourself - what kind of investor in their right mind would freely lend $50k in unsecured funds to someone to study 4 years of interpretive dance?


The amended return Form 1040x has a different calculation for the `Refund or Amount You Owe' section than the original 1040, you use the amount you owed or amount overpaid from the original return to offset the impact of the amended return. This calculation assumes the refund/payment has been made already.  So deposit your refund check, then file the amended return. I suggest filing sooner rather than later in case you owe (unlikely to be penalized unless it's significant/fraudulent), but sooner is better anyway.


In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house  takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm


This is a great answer.  It's worth noting that often internal charging is commonly an issue in less clear cut situations like IT departments charging for their services - there is much less of an 'real' value that they could charge for their services to the outside world (as it is an internal service not a physical product that is relatively liquid), yet their chargeable costs gets inflated and can slow down businesses by making projects seem more expensive than they are. I would describe that as one of the most common gripes.  Also I'd argue that your latter scenario where profits are shifted around to reduce tax bills IS well understood by the top of the business, and unlikely to create a situation where divisions are mistakenly regarded as unprofitable (unless the CFO / FD is missing from all the board meetings!). It's a situation that is carefully designed by the business.


I don't know that.  I know mine has a great mobile app where I can deposit a check online.  And all the smaller banks I've seen dont build their own sites or apps, they white label generic ones from common vendors.


Just type in the forms as they are, separately. That would be the easiest way both to enter the data without any mistakes, and ensure that everything matches properly with the IRS reports.


Buy the minimum of one fund now. (Eg total bond market) Buy the minimum of the next fund next time you have $2500. (Eg large-cap stocks.) Continue with those until you have enough to buy the next fund (eg small-cap stocks).  Adjust as you go to balance these funds according to your planned ratios, or as close as you can reasonably get without having to actually transfer money between the funds more than once a year or so. Build up to your targets over time. If you can't easily afford to tie up that first $2500, stay with banks and CDs and maybe money market accounts until you can. And don't try to invest (except maybe through a matched 401k) before you have adequate savings both for normal life and for an emergency reserve. Note too that the 401k can be a way to buy into funds without a minimum. Check with your employer. If you haven't maxed out your 401k yet, and it has matching funds, that is usually the place to start saving for retirement; otherwise you are leaving free money on the table.


This is just a pedestrian (my) opinion: Yes, It is wise to invest in bond funds even in a low interest environment. Check out the lazy man's portfolio on bogleheads. The reason is:


Put them in Cds.  Better than a savings account, you won't lose capital unlike the stock market.


i've had a few friends who tried it out for shits a giggles with a very small amount of money (a couple hundred at most) and with enough diversification, they basically broke even, or lost a little bit. With enough free time, i had a friend look into very specific companies that were offering cheap stock, and guessed on if they thought these companies would be successful given market potential, and yeah, it really was a crap-shot on whether the'd make a damn thing...   After fees for making the trades and the crazyness of penny stocks, ultimately, they wasted time and lost a small amount of money.


According to Intuit, you cannot claim the $50 charitable contribution, so the entire $2000 / month will be taxable instead of $1900. That's only an extra $35 if your combined tax rate is 35%. As TTT mentioned, do this for the experience, not for the money. My wife and I have been hosting international students for 10 years now. https://ttlc.intuit.com/questions/3152069-i-received-a-1099-misc-employee-compensation-for-hosting-a-foreign-exchange-student-can-i-complete-a-schedule-c-for-the-expenses


In general people make a few key mistakes with property: 1) Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well. 2) Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth.  3) Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. 4) Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. 5) Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. 6) Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20yr+ contracts/activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential – particularly in fast moving jobs like software development.  Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close, it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.


December, 8, 2011 ( 01:30 pm) :-  Gold & Silver good support by the investors who are keep maintaining their buy position in MCX & Comex.  But spot traders has sold 1000 kg Silver on Wednesday. Apart from this Silver maintaining their support above $ 32 & but also facing some resistance at $ 33.20.  If today $ 33.20, Silver able to trade above that level than we can fore see their prices up to $ 34 - 35 in short term but if all problems are sowed after the today meet.  Gold trend today totally bullish, If they trade above $ 1740 & Rs 29250 in MCX, We can for see Gold prices up to $ 1760 - $ 1780 in Comex & Rs 29500 - Rs 29700 in MCX.


"If you don't withhold enough you'll pay penalties. The best would be to withhold just enough not to have any additional liabilities or refunds at the end of the year. IRS gives you some space to play in case you miscalculate and withhold a little bit less (they'll ""look the other way"" if you end up withholding up to as low as 90% of your tax liability). Anything below that triggers penalties, interests and fees. IRS pub 505 for details."


Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense.  2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).


This is because short term debt needs to be rolled over to finance the long term project and so, when interest rates rise they will be refinanced at a higher interest rate. This means that it will end up costing more than if the company had taken out a long term loan at the lower rate. A long term project implies that the beneficial (incoming) cashflows will be long term but with short term financing the debt will come payable sooner which is why it needs rolling over; any beneficial cashflows are not  enough to cover the debt.


> They follow the coldly rational, impersonally merciless path of greatest profit in the most immediate term, without the slightest concern for your humanity or needs.  Watch out, your heart is bleeding on the floor.  Banks are a business, not a charity. They lend you money to make a profit. If you're not comfortable with that, don't take their money *and falsely promise to pay it back.*


"Interestingly enough, ""strategic default"" seems to be more common than one might think in California and there is actually a lot of information available on it, to include a calculator that breaks down the numbers for you (although affiliated with a law office). Speaking from a purely financial standpoint, walking away only makes sense if it puts you in a better financial position than you were before while you had the mortgage. If you look at the downsides of walking away: The issues with the credit rating are will known but you need to take into account any open lines of credit you currently have as well as any need you might have to open a line of credit in the future. If you currently have credit cards, will the rates go up after the hit? On the housing side of things, you mortgage payment is currently a known quantity that will not change for the duration of the mortgage unless you do something to change it. However, it is fairly rare for rents to not change between years and if you want an apartment or house similar to what you currently have, you might find that the rent will fluctuate quite a bit between years and in the long run the rent might run higher than your current mortgage payment. Likewise, in the shorter term, if the landlord runs a credit check they might adjust what the rent is (or deny you the apartment) on the basis of the black mark on your history for reasons that other have mentioned. Another item to take into account is if you need to get a job in the future. Depending upon what you do for a living this might be a non-issue; however, if you are in a position of trust, walking away from a mortgage payment will reflect negatively upon your character unless you have a very good reason for it. This can lead to a loss of employment opportunities. Next, if you walk away from the mortgage you are walking away from the current value of the home and any future value that the home might have. If you like where you are living and aren't planning on moving to another part of the country, you are gambling that the market will not recover or that you would reach parity with what you owe by the time you need to sell the house. If you do plan on staying where you are and the house is in good repair, then in the long run you might be giving up quite a bit of money by walking away. These are a lot of factors to take into account though so its really hard to say one way or another if a strategic default is a good idea. In the long run you might come out ahead but knowing when that date is can be difficult to calculate. Likewise, in the long run it might adversely affect you and you might come to regret the decision.  If the payments themselves are a bit too high, perhaps you can refinance or negotiate with the bank for a lower payment? If you get a better rate but keep your monthly payments the same then you might reach parity with the mortgage much faster which would also be to your advantage."


Your best bet is to refinance the car in your own name only. Hopefully a year of making the payments has improved your credit score enough. If not, you can approach a loan officer at a credit union and make your case (that you haven't missed any payments, etc.). A new title should be sent to the new lien holder, and  in that process, if your ex needs to sign any paperwork, it can be done while refinancing.


"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question.  I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising.  You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place.  Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of ""cancelling"" an option you purchased: No, you cannot ""cancel"" an option contract, per se.  But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market.  When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value.  Once you sell, you're back to ""no position"".  That's not the same as ""cancelled"", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who ""sold to open"" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote.  However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market.  Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time.  This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a ""buy to close"", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position.  (The other kind of buy is the ""buy to open"".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who ""sold to open"" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract.  For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation.  Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities   options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the   National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the   entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately   cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the   opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes   the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows   options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having   to find the original opposite party.   [...]   [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment.  (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: ""I know my counter party cannot sell his shares"" ... that's not strictly true.  You are thinking of a covered call.  But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares.  Look up Naked call (Wikipedia).  Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call ""is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk"".  The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC)."


Thanks for that, it did help.   I think my issue is I don't work in finance itself, I'm a lawyer, and 'capital' generally has a very specific meaning in English company law, where it refers exclusively to shareholder capital.   I realise capital in finance terms includes both debt and equity investment.


The other issue you could run into is that each deferred account is going to be subject to its own RMD's (Required Minimum Distributions) when you've retired or hit 70.5 years of age.  Roth's don't generally care about RMD's at first, but are still subject to them once the person that created the Roth has passed.  Having fewer accounts will simplify the RMD stuff, but that's really only a factor in terms of being forced to sell 'something' in each account in order to make the RMD.   Other than that, it's just a matter of remembering to check each account if you come to a decision that it's time to liquidate holdings in a given security, lest you sell some but forget about the rest of it in another account.  (and perhaps as Chris pointed out, maybe having to pay fee's on each account for the sale)  Where this really can come into play is if you choose to load up each individual account with a given kind of investment, instead of spreading them across the accounts.  In that case RMD's could force you into selling something that is currently 'down' when you want to hold onto it, because that is your only choice in order to meet RMD's for account X.  So if you have multiple accounts, it's a good idea to not 'silo' particular vehicles into a single account, but spread similar ivestments across multiple accounts, so you always have the choice in each account of what to sell in order to meet an RMD. If you have fewer accounts, it's thus a lot easier to avoid the siloing effect


"Let's do some simple math: you front 1500, they leverage you 10:1.  You now have 15K. 3$/15000. Basically you are going to be paying to say buy 100 SPY's @ 133 ($13300 total) 3$. I pay 1$ for the same trade.  How many trades a day are you going to have to make on that to make money? as 10 points on SPY = 1$ per share (and this is if you're good).  Your average win on trades might be 0.2c * 100 = 20$ If you can make ""5"" good trades that would set you back 3*2*5=30$  From your potential 100$ take in this case you would walk home with 70$ but wait theres more!, you only get 80% of this and they get 20%. So you get 56$ and they get 14.  They have made a total of 44$ in this case,you've made 56$.  How far are they gonna leverage you and what kinda sizes can you trade up to on 3$ transaction cost?"


You guys seem to have forgotten the most important part of this equation ... i work for a bank and I can tell u this as a painful fact ... every business is governed by its paperwork ... articles bylaws operating agreements amendments and minutes .. if a companys paperwork says that the 51% owner can fire everyone and move to Alaska and that paperwork is proper (signed and binding) it is with minimal excavation law... case in point every company is different .. and it is formed and governed by its paperwork.


This is perfect for the ELI5 posts that always come up on this topic.  Great article.  I'd be interested in seeing a little more on the regulatory aspects of derivative contracts.  Derivatives are complex because the associated risks are complex.  When banks, insurers, and other entities large enough to have a Chief Risk Officer enter into these contracts, the assumption is that they know what they're doing, so to my knowledge, they're generally lightly regulated.  Additionally, those that understand derivatives enough to regulate them are unlikely to work for the comparatively low wages that they'd get in government. That said, I'd be interested in seeing something discussing the challenges in regulating something like this.  Even before 2008, there were some pretty big failures involving derivatives where risk was not adequately managed that probably wouldn't have been avoided with stronger regulation.


John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic.  So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.


I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself.  I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks.  Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors.  The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up.  I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility.  Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.


Here is a quick quote from an article on Netflix, Uber, and Telsa the biggest cash burners in the business today. >Investing today for profits tomorrow is what capitalism is all about. Amazon lost $4bn in 2012-14 while building an empire that now makes money. Nonetheless, it is rare for big companies to sustain heavy losses just to expand fast. If you examine the members of the Russell 1000 index [a stock market index] of large American firms, only 25 of them, or 3.3%, lost over $1bn of free cashflow in 2016 (all figures exclude financial firms and are based on Bloomberg data). In 2007 the share was 1.4% and in 1997, under 1%. Most billion-dollar losers today are energy firms temporarily in the doldrums as they adjust to a recent plunge in oil prices. Their losses are an accident.


Mutual funds don't work like stocks in that way. The price of a mutual fund is set at the end of each day and doesn't fluctuate during the day. So no matter when you put in your order, it will be filled at the end of the day at whatever the closing price is for that day. Here is some good information on that There is no continuous pricing of fund shares throughout the trading   day. When an investor places an order to buy or sell a fund's shares,   the order is executed based on the NAV calculated at the end of that   trading day, regardless of what time during the day the order was   placed. On the other hand, if the investor were to check the price of   his or her fund shares halfway through the business day, the price   quoted would be the previous day's NAV because that was the last time   the fund calculated and reported the value. -http://www.finweb.com/investing/how-mutual-funds-are-priced.html


Question:  So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam,  it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash.  So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is.    And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary?   But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off?  You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.


looks like the US tax system needs an overhaul. You cant charge yourself arbitrary amounts to even out your bottom line.  Wel you and I cant, but apparently we just need to make more money to do so....thanks BK for showing me the way!!


"One trick is to make all purchases end in a particular number of your choosing, say ""3"". From now on, all restaurant meals,gas purchases, and anything in your control, end them in 3. When you glance at the bill, you can skip these charges, and look carefully at the rest. It's not 100%, as you couldn't easily impact supermarket charges and many others, but it's half of my routine charges."


Bankers, home builders, and real estate people made a lot of money selling more houses than they should have.  To sell that many houses, they had to lie and let people without good jobs buy houses that cost too much. Then the jobs went away and the people lost their way of paying for their house.  Now there are still all those houses and still no jobs.  It is called a bubble because it was planned.  It was no accident. Even the part about jobs going away.  The rich people knew what was happening, the jobs began to go away in the early 1970's.  The plan, in part, was to make as much money as they could before too many people lost their jobs.  No jobs means no customers and no more easy money.


Scanned or electronic copies of invoices should be sufficient as long as they are accurate and you can deliver them during an audit. Also, if you have an accountant prepare your taxes you would either need to provide them a copy of the invoices or a summary of them with the corresponding amounts to be claimed. Personally I prefer to print out a paper copy and file that away with that quarter's and year's other tax documents. I do my own taxes and find paper copies handy as I can go through each invoice/receipt and make sure I have entered its information by ticking it. I find that when handling a large number of documents that paper copies are more easy to handle than electronic ones. In the end you will need to use a system that you feel comfortable with and are able to use effectively.


"While I agree with Ben a lot I feel like his answer is really poor here. You do not call a number to give your credit card information out for a refund.  That is ridiculous.  Just from his answer - he has had 5 cases of fraud lately - you should know that you shouldn't follow this advice. I personally don't ever give my credit card number over the phone, unless it is the very very very last resort.  It is not just about money and safety but it is about time.  Every time that you give your number out over the phone there is a chance that the employee on the other end (by either scam or legitimate business) will use or sell your info.  So you need to determine if the time saved by doing a transaction over the phone is worth hours/days of your time if your card has a fraud issue.  And note that fraud sometimes is easily negated, but if done smartly can be hard to prove via a quick call or email to card company. What should you do? Tell company that you will simply get the refund through your credit card company. And if we go back to time element...  You fill out form on card website.  Card company goes back to vendor and says - ""Why are you asking for card numbers via email?""  Card company either cancels vendor contract or more likely helps them understand the technology available so they don't have to do this.  Therefore that quick form that you filled out will now keep this company from bugging you again.  By going through their archaic ""systems"" you are enabling their behavior."


You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy.  Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K.  When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.


Ethically, you and your landlord should always report both income and expense as there technically exists a service and a rent. So it is subject to taxation. On the other hand, it can be considered an exchange of a simple favour and if it doesn't involve a money exchange or any profits (I am assuming that you are not selling what you or your landlord produce on the market) no value can be calculated thus no taxation can be applied. This changes though if a contract is involved, as a legal value can be estimated. Caution: These subjects can vary on an extreme level of specificity, of what can and cannot be claimed as income and expense, which can vary per country, state, province and even per judge, as well as the nature and sector of the work. Also, if you intend to formalize this relationship, the type of contract and reporting forms do vary per state as well. So it might be best to confirm it with a local legal advisor to avoid unfortunate surprises.


"I'm assuming that you're in the US.  In that case, the answer is that it depends on how your company set up its reimbursement plan.  The IRS recognizes ""accountable"" and ""nonaccountable"" plans.  Accountable plans have to meet certain requirements.  Anything else is nonaccountable.  If you are reimbursed according to an accountable plan, this is not income and should not be reported to the IRS at all.  If you are reimbursed under a nonaccountable plan, then this is income but you might be able to get a deduction on your tax return if you itemize. Most established companies have accountable plans for normal business expenses. More detail from IRS: http://www.tax.gov/TaxabilityCertainFringeBenefits/pdf/Accountable_v_Nonaccountable_Plans_Methods_of_Reimbursing_Employees_for_Expense.pdf"


~~LLPs are for licensed professionals like doctors and lawyers. He'll need to incorporate as an LLC if that's the route he goes.~~  He really should talk to a lawyer and an accountant before doing anything. There are probably no advantages to an LLC if the property isn't actually owned by the corporation.


Use a compound interest calculator to project the difference with ETFs in the S&P 500 (or the asset mix of your choosing), and subtract the expected pension amount. If the difference is positive, or around around even, I would do it to avoid the risk of company failure.


"Liquidity is highly correlated to efficiency primarily because if an asset's price is not sampled during the time of a trade, it's price is unknown therefore inefficient.  Past prices can be referenced, but they are not the price of the present.  Prices of substitutes are even worse. SPY is extremely efficient for an equity.  If permitted, it could easily trade with much lower ticks and still have potential for a locked market. Ideal exchange An ideal exchange has no public restrictions on trade.  This is not to say that private restrictions would need to be put in place for various reasons, but one would only do that if it were responsible for its own survival instead of being too big to fail. In this market, trades would be approximately continuous for the largest securities and almost always locked because of continuous exchange fee competition with ever dropping minimum ticks. A market that can provide continuous locked orders with infinite precision is perfectly efficient from the point of view of the investor because the value of one's holdings are always known. EMH In terms of the theory the Efficient Market Hypothesis this is irrelevant to the rational investor. The rational investor will invest in the market at large of a given asset class, only increasing risk as wealth increases thus moving to more volatile asset classes when the volatility can be absorbed by excess wealth. Here, liquidity is also helpful, the ""two heads are better than one"" way of thinking.  The more invested in an asset class, the lower the class's variance and vice versa.  Bonds, the least variant, dwarf equities which dwarf options, all in order of the least variance.  Believe it or not, there was a day when bonds were almost as risky as equities. For those concerned with EMH, liquidity is also believed to increase efficiency in some forms because liquidity is proportional to the number of individuals invested thus reducing the likelihood of an insufficient number of participants. External inefficiency In the case of ETFs that do not perfectly track their underlying index less costs at all times between index changes, this is because they are forbidden from directly trading in the market on their own behalf. If they were allowed and honest, the price would always be perfect and much more liquid than it otherwise should be since the combined frequency of all index members is much higher than any one alone. If one was dishonest, it would try to defraud with higher or lower numbers; however, if insider trading were permitted, both would fail due to the prisoner's dilemma that there is no honor among thieves.  Here, the market would detect the problem much sooner because the insiders would arbitrage the false price away.   Indirect internal efficiency Taking emerging market ETFs as an example, the markets that those are invested into are heavily restricted, so their ETF to underlying price inefficiencies are more pronounced even though the ETFs are actually working to make those underlying markets more efficient because a price for them altogether is known."


Some things to keep in mind:  •Having multiple cards can help, just make sure not to borrow more than you need.  •The amount of time you have had your credit cards is important.  •Make sure you're not getting a lot of hard inquiries on your credit.  Hopefully these will help!


When getting a mortgage it always depends on the bank and each bank may be more or less strict. With that being said there are rules and general guidelines which can help you understand how you fit in the world of mortgage approvals. If you can provide the same paper work as an employee of your company that you would normally provide from any other company then a bank may just accept that alone. However to me it seems like you will be looking at a new variation of what was known as a Self-certification mortgage A self-certification mortgage is basically a mortgage for those who   cannot prove their income. As a result of the housing collapse, the rules on a traditional self-cert mortgages have changed. As someone who is self employed, it is more difficult today to get a mortgage but is still possible. This article provides some good information: Can the self employed still get a mortgage? I advise doing some research on this topic and speaking with a professional mortgage broker.  Some Resources: Compare Self Cert Mortgages How to beat the mortgage famine in 2012 Can the self employed still get a mortgage?


No, even businesses pay taxes quarterly.  So if you formed Nathan, LLC, or otherwise became self employed, you'd still have to file quarterly estimates and make tax payments.  This would cause taxes to be a much more high touch part of your life. However, you should ensure that you're claiming the proper exemptions etc to avoid excessive withholding.


The only possibility that I've seen in the past is if some of the income is for deferred services which are to be delivered in the following tax year, a portion of the income can be deferred.  Also, agree that you should be an S-corp and talk to another CPA if yours hasn't told you that yet.


"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say ""Do not initiate new position.""  This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it.   Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very ""who knows what it will do"" neutral position (IMO)."


If your savings account linked to the mortgage account is an 100% offset account then you don't need to put extra funds into the mortgage account apart from the minimum payments which is done automatically. Any funds you have in an 100% offset acount reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the mortgage.  So if your mortgage is $100,000 and you have $10,000 in the offset account then you only pay interest on $90,000 within the mortgage. Also the funds in the offset account are at call any time as it is simply a savings account. You can have all your pay go into it and have direct debits set up for all your bills. This way you will benefit from maximising the amounts in your offset account and reducing the amount of interest you pay on your mortgage. If your current linked savings account is not an 100% offset account ask your bank if you can change it over to one that is. If they don't have offset accounts for that particular mortgage account ask them if they have a different mortgage account with offset accounts. If they can't help you then shop arround for a bank or lender that does. I am currently with ANZ and they have a product with 100% offset account and about 0.7% below the standard variable rate, and there are plenty more similar products out there.


"A short-sale seems like an extreme and unethical course to take.  You should read your mortgage documents or work with your attorney to read the mortgage and determine whether it is an ""assumable"" mortgage. If so, you might be able to get the former owner to take over the mortgage."


As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account.  The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account.  for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights!


3% in a year. 3% a month would be an enormously high interest rate.


Probably not. If you were at a small company and asked such a question, you'd get advice and links to erisa or other case law, etc.  it's safe to say that a Fortune 500 company such as IBM is going to have their facts in order, and not going to run afoul of the rules in these cases (vesting rules and takeover of other company).  I was in a company that cancelled its pension program. Those of us with the required years got the option of a lump sum payout, those with less than 5 years had no vested value and got nothing. One month longer employment, in the case of a particular coworker, would have given him a lump sum worth nearly 6 months pay.


You're talking about floating rate loans. It's so that the bond is marked back to market every 90 days. Any more often would be a hassle to deal with for everyone involved, any less often and they would be significant variance from LIBOR vs. the loan's specific rate.


**Social Security number**  In the United States, a Social Security number (SSN) is a nine-digit number issued to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary (working) residents under section 205(c)(2) of the Social Security Act, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2). The number is issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration, an independent agency of the United States government. Although its primary purpose is to track individuals for Social Security purposes, the Social Security number has become a de facto national identification number for taxation and other purposes.  A Social Security number may be obtained by applying on Form SS-5, Application for A Social Security Number Card.  ***  ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/business/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot)   ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.27


"Don't mind the percentages. They are highly misleading. First, ""saving"" is making available for future use. It might be ""hoarding"", ""investing"" or a combination thereof. It might be for a specific use (a car, a college education, retirement, etc.), or for a non-specific use (for an emergency, for when you decide to spend some of those savings, or just for lack of a compelling use as of the moment). In first case, whatever you save should be available by the date you intend to use it. In second case, it might be prudent to have savings (and investments, see below) of various liquidity (cash you have at hand, bank account you can draw next day, mutual fund account you can draw in a month, maybe something you can only cash in a year etc.). You will see that the actual percentages you ""save"" fluctuate enormously throughout your life, varying with the progress of your career, changes of marital status and family cmposition, etc., etc. What you should really do is to come up with a rough plan of how you expect, from right now and to the end of your life at whatever age, have enough money for whatever level of comfort you plan for each period of your life, allowing for some specified level of perturbations. Then you just execute that plan or change it as you go."


You're asking whether the shares you sold while being a US tax resident are taxable in the US. The answer is yes, they are. How you acquired them or what were the circumstances of the sale is irrelevant. When you acquired them is relevant to the determination of the tax treatment - short or long term capital gains. You report this transaction on your Schedule D, follow the instructions. Make sure you can substantiate the cost basis properly based on how much you paid for the shares you sold (the taxable income recognized to you at vest).


Possible alternative: In my case, the part-time locksmithing is a small enough portion of my I come that I just submit it as hobby income, rather than trying to track it as a separate entity.


I'd recommend investing in a mutual fund that diversifies your purchase across a number of stocks (and bonds, depending on the fund). Vanguard has some of the lowest fees around, and have a large number of funds to choose from. Take a look at their offerings for a data point if nothing else.


I think people in general tend to unnecessarily over-complicate this issue.  Here's what I think you should do in any situation like this: First and foremost, put all tax considerations aside and decide whether it makes sense to sell the stock now or hold on to it for the long term based on its merits as an investment.  Tax considerations have absolutely nothing to do with whether the stock is a good investment.  If you consider all non-tax factors and decide to hold on to it for the long term, then you can use the tax considerations as a very minor input to how long you should hold it - in other words, don't set your time horizon to 17.5 months if waiting another 2 weeks gives you better tax treatment. You're going to pay taxes on your gains no matter what.  The only difference is whether you pay capital gains tax or income tax.  Granted, the income tax rate is higher, but wouldn't it suck if you pay a LOT less tax only because you have a LOT less value in your stock? So to answer your question - I would say, absolutely not, tax consequences do not make it worthwhile to hold on to your ESPP shares.  If you decide to hold on to your ESPP for other reasons (and they better be good ones to put that much free profit at risk), only then should you look at the tax consequences to help fine-tune your strategy.


"Can you give the context? A bond usually only has one ""tenor,"" so weighted average tenor could apply to all the bonds that a single firm owes? Or an industry or the market or a specific bond rating or whatever. But we usually use duration as it's more useful"


You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.


Looks like you need marketing. How many others (competitors) are in the area? Hospitals? Determine your total market by figuring your revenue and that of your competitors. This is your potential.  Now, how to get business from your competition. Yes, website is the cheapest most effective first step.   But WHO is your TARGET market or your customers? Where do they get their information? Are they watching local TV or listening to local radio and you need to take out some ad space?  Are they even on social media? Decide what promotion would be effective for your target (coupons?)  Check out a used marketing textbook or continue to research on Google to get a feel for what I am talking about.


"Technically filing fee is probably a ""startup cost"", but yes - its a kind of an expense. The yearly recurring fee is an expense."


would you earn $600 or $1600?  You would have $1600, and your earnings would be $600. That's the only answer it could be, since if you start with $1000 from your savings, then it's impossible for you to have also earned that money in the stock market. When you sell, do you keep your original capital, ($1000)? If you own a car which you bought for $1000, and then sell it for $1600, do you keep the original $1000?


"Just looking at the practicality: Because the total value of outstanding mortgages in the US is about $10 trillion, and the government can't afford it without printing enough money to cause hyperinflation. The cost of saving the banks was actually much less than the ""hundreds of billions of dollars"" that is quoted, because most of it was loans that have been or will be repaid, not cash payments."


This may only apply to Canada, but I would ask if the mortgages they lend are non-transferable. Meaning if you decide in year 2 of your 5 year term that you want to sell and move you pay a penalty, rather than be able to transfer the mortgage to a new house.


The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty).  The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly.  Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal.  This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do.  For example, you may need a car.  Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan.  Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans.  50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself.  So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan.   (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.)   Remember that life happens.  You'll meet someone.  You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out.  You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge.  Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.


As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/


For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply.  The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders.  Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs.  However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.


One of the other things you could do to improve your score would be along the lines of what Pete said in his answer, but using the current financial climate to your advantage. I'm not sure what interest rates are available to you in the UK, but I currently have 4 lines of credit aside from my house. One is a credit card I use for every day purchases and like you pay off immediately with every statement. The other three are technically credit cards, however all three were used to make purchases with 0% financing. The one was for a TV I bought that even gave me 5% off if I pay it off within 6 months. That cash has been sitting in my savings since the day I bought it. I'm making regular payments on all three, but not having to pay any interest. My credit score dropped 25 points with the one as it was an elective medical expense (Visian eye surgery), so for the time the balance is near my credit limit. However, that will bounce back up as the balance lowers. My score was also able to take that hit and still be very high. If you don't have 0% (or very close) available, your better bet would be to follow the other suggestions about saving for a sizable down payment, or other every day expenses like a cell phone.


Yes, the business can count that as an expense but you will need to count that as income because a computer = money.


As more people earn it, the value will dilute to some degree. However, I think for *some* parts of finance, the charter will retain usefulness. I mean, college degrees are *extremely* diluted, but they're still seen as a necessary requirement.  I see that happening for PM type of roles. Clearly anywhere it isn't useful now won't see appreciation in that later.


"Check out Professor Damodaran's website: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ . Tons of good stuff there to get you started. If you want more depth, he's written what is widely considered the bible on the subject of valuation: ""Investment Valuation"". DCF is very well suited to stock analysis. One doesn't need to know, or forecast the future stock price to use it. In fact, it's the opposite. Business fundamentals are forecasted to estimate the sum total of future cash flows from the company, discounted back to the present. Divide that by shares outstanding, and you have the value of the stock. The key is to remember that DCF calculations are very sensitive to inputs. Be conservative in your estimates of future revenue growth, earnings margins, and capital investment. I usually develop three forecasts: pessimistic, neutral, optimistic. This delivers a range of value instead of a false-precision single number. This may seem odd: I find the DCF invaluable, but for the process, not so much the result. The input sensitivity requires careful work, and while a range of value is useful, the real benefit comes from being required to answer the questions to build the forecast. It provides a framework to analyze a business. You're just trying to properly fill in the boxes, estimate the unguessable. To do so, you pore through the financials. Skimming, reading with a purpose. In the end you come away with a fairly deep understanding of the business, how they make money, why they'll continue to make money, etc."


"Normally I avoid any links pointing to guardian or telegraph or such sites but just was curios to what exactly the content of such a ""paper"" would be.   As expected, it has the seeds of a world war and is a lab factory for future terrorism. How does one expect value without work. US atleast produces some value here and there, but the other countries are just decline stage. Seriously UK? It seems some people can just not let go off their easy life ride or ""way of life"" as it is often referred to - basically create a system highly stacked in one's own favor and then blatantly call out others as conspiracy theorists or some such noun to get them on the defensive. Elimination of public debt should not be allowed for these countries.   There is so much cunningness, guile, cheating, lying in sneaky fashion and so much negativity hiding behind that theory - it is sometimes depressing how world operates and then people complain about it when there is real chance to put checks and balances to stop such disgusting things from taking form."


There are some good answers in general, and I have a slightly different solution, which won't fit as a comment to one of the other answers. I am of course not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


"Here are the risks involved with student loans: So - what happens if you decide (or are forced) not to finish school (50% of students don't)?  You have no degree to boost income, but still have the debt.   What happens when you graduate and want to use that saved cash buy a house, car, etc., and treat the student loans as a monthly bill?  The next thing you know you're loan-poor and are struggling to make your monthly payments just like most other ""normal"" people. You aren't going to earn significant interest on your cash while you're in college (and it will not outpace inflation), and there's significant risk of your college savings losing money if they're not in risk-free investments, so it would NOT be wise to take out student loans when you have the means to cash-flow it. Also, student loans generally charge a roughly 1% fee, so that actually negates the interest you earn in your savings account. Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for."


take a look at this graph here: http://mortgagevista.com/#m=1&a=40000&b=4&c=30y&B&oa&ob&oc&od It shows how much it costs to borrow $40k for 30 years. You did not post your mortgage rate or loan term, so I used 4% over 30 years (you can easily update this with your actual details). While this does not show the costs of your total mortgage, it does help you get an idea of just how much the 40k$ in question is costing you in interest. If you hover over the month one year from now you will see that you will have paid around $1587 in interest over the course of the year. If you were to put the full 40k$ toward your mortgage right now, you would avoid having to pay this interest over the next year.  The next question I think you would have to ask yourself is if there is anything else you could do with that money that is worth more than the $1587 to you.  Is it worth $1587 to keep those funds liquid/available in case you need to use them for something else? Could you find other investments you feel comfortable with that could earn you more than $1587?  Is it worth the hassle/risk of investing the funds somewhere else with a better return? If you can't come up with anything better to do with the money then yes, you should probably use the funds (or at least part of them) towards the mortgage.


Okay so we are assuming that you can sustain 6% or more return on your investments.   Personally I would compare that rate to what lines of credit are going for and do what ever is least expensive.   Either way your risk is the same.  Your net worth is the same.  Your assets will be the same. Your liabilities will be the same. Its just a matter of who you owe it to and what the rate is. Don't be afraid of having a second mortgage.  If the stocks go down either way you have to sell what's left and pay your debt. Or what I should maybe say is don't be more afraid of a line of credit more than margin in your investment account.


You are NOT responsible for liquidating the position.  You will either end up retaining your 100 sh. after expiration, or they will be called away automatically. You don't have to do anything.  Extending profitability can mean different things, but a major consideration is whether or not you want to hold the stock or not.  If so, you can buy back the in-the-money call and sell another one at-the-money, or further out. There are lots of options.


There is no country tag, so I will answer the question generally. Is it possible...? Yes, it's possible and common. Is it wise? Ask Barings Bank whether it's a good idea to allow speculative investing.